New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 34 of 50 FirstFirst ... 9242526272829303132333435363738394041424344 ... LastLast
Results 991 to 1,020 of 1485
  1. - Top - End - #991
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Storm Bringer's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    kendal, england
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Haighus View Post
    Hmm, I am either missing something, or there must have been a small window of Chinese Nationalist for the poor sod to be captured from the Russians, before Maoist Socialist took over China.

    your missing something, specifically that the formal name for the party that Hitter was the leader of was the NSDAP, the National Socialist German Workers Party.
    Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Tommy, 'ow's yer soul? "
    But it's " Thin red line of 'eroes " when the drums begin to roll
    The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
    O it's " Thin red line of 'eroes, " when the drums begin to roll.

    "Tommy", Rudyard Kipling

  2. - Top - End - #992
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    PirateGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2017

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Storm Bringer View Post
    your missing something, specifically that the formal name for the party that Hitter was the leader of was the NSDAP, the National Socialist German Workers Party.
    That isn't the bit I mean- why would Communist China capture a soldier from Communist Russia? There must be a brief period where the soldier was captured by the nationalists in China before Mao took over.

  3. - Top - End - #993
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Storm Bringer's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    kendal, england
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Haighus View Post
    That isn't the bit I mean- why would Communist China capture a soldier from Communist Russia? There must be a brief period where the soldier was captured by the nationalists in China before Mao took over.
    because the two communist nations didn't always get along. there were a few border disputes between the two that rumbled on for decades, plus the russains thought that all communists should listen to the them as the leaders of the communist world, and china, following a different strain of communist thought, did not.

    of coruse, i might be misremember it, he might have been traded by the russains to the Chinese. either way, he ended up in korea and was captured by the US.
    Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Tommy, 'ow's yer soul? "
    But it's " Thin red line of 'eroes " when the drums begin to roll
    The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
    O it's " Thin red line of 'eroes, " when the drums begin to roll.

    "Tommy", Rudyard Kipling

  4. - Top - End - #994
    Titan in the Playground
     
    PersonMan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Duitsland
    Gender
    Male

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

    If it's the "soldier of three armies" from the Sabaton song, his career was Finnish -> German -> American, fighting in the Winter War, Continuation War and then the Vietnam War. It was a lot less convoluted than being captured over and over; as far as I can tell it was mostly that he didn't like the Soviet Union or their friends.
    Not Person_Man, don't thank me for things he did.

    Old-to-New table converter. Also not made by me.

  5. - Top - End - #995
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Mike_G's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Laughing with the sinners
    Gender
    Male

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

    There was also a Korean solider who was forced to fight for the Japanese, was captured by the Russians at Kalkhin Gol, fought for them, was captured by the Germans, forced to fight for them, and was eventually captured by the US.

    There was a movie about him.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Way_(2011_film)
    Last edited by Mike_G; 2017-12-06 at 08:08 AM.
    Out of wine comes truth, out of truth the vision clears, and with vision soon appears a grand design. From the grand design we can understand the world. And when you understand the world, you need a lot more wine.


  6. - Top - End - #996
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Gender
    Male

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

    I was busy and lost track of this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clistenes View Post
    You are thinking of the democratic period. Things were different during the aristocratic period: During the aristocratic period usually only as small aristocratic elite actually fought, there weren't real armies, and aristocrats fought whatever way it was most convenient for them. Most of the fighting was done on foot, but it wasn't related to cavalry being looked down.

    Eventually certain non-aristocratic groups gained power in cities, and pushed aristocrats out of power, largely because they found that 500 merchants/artisans/whatever with armor, shields and long spears could defeat 10 aristocratic warriors.
    Perhaps I'm blurring the two. It was certainly the case in the democratic period, running right up to the rise of Makedon, that there was a suspicion of aristocrats choosing to fight on horseback.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clistenes View Post
    Maybe. It doesn't change the fact that merchants and artisans didn't have as much free time to spend training as nobles did. Plus many people who could afford armor weren't able to afford horses.
    There's no maybe about it, the notion that stirrups are required for a couched charge is nonsense. Alexander's Companions were charging-home, heavy cavalry, none of them had stirrups. Their primary purpose was to give horse-archers a good seat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clistenes View Post
    That came later, starting during the Greco-Persian Wars and the rise Athenian power. Only Athens and Corinth developed huge warfleets, but most Greek states developed armies of citizen-soldiers.
    There isn't really a lot of time between the re-establishment of democracy in 510BC and the Ionian Revolt in 499BC, so I think the point is rather moot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clistenes View Post
    Greek warfare became increasingly sofisticated over time, eventually evolving into fully professional armies during the Macedonian and Hellenistic period. At the beginning, when they toppled the nobles during the VII-VI a.C, they had just enough training to stay in formation and move towards the enemy.

    We tend to see Greek history as an homogeneous thing, but there were around 160 years between Maraton and the conquest of the Persian empire.
    I'm pretty clear on the differences between Greco-Persian Wars and Hellenistic era. I was already distinguishing in that part you quoted between the Greco-Persian Wars, the wars of the Delian League and those of the Peloponnesian War. The Hellenistic era is often ignored altogether, except as the prelude to the era of Roman dominance.

    For the most part, Greece itself didn't have professional armies in the Hellenistic era, it still relied on citizen-militias. They changed back and forth between hoplite/pike/thureophoros models as they won and lost in conflicts. The closest anyone came to professionalism was if they turned mercenary.

    Even Alexander didn't have a lot of use for Greeks on his campaigns; the fighting was done by Makedonians and various allied nations, Greeks might be put on a flank or more often used as garrisons to hold strong points while the rest of the army moved on.

    The professionals in the Hellenistic were Makedonian settlers and other Hellenes and Hellenising peoples given grants of land in return for service. And mercenaries.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clistenes View Post
    Being and athlete is very different from being a martial artist, and even more different from being a trained soldier. Training with sword and spear was, surprisingly, unpopular in Athens during the classic period.
    No they weren't different, that's a modern division that doesn't apply. Athletes trained for the Olympics and other major games, which contained a host of martial events in them; running in and out of armour, throwing javelins and discus, boxing/wrestling (pankration), fighting in armour, horse-racing. All those events were practise for war. We have the example of the athlete Dioxippus famously beating one of Alexander's soldiers in a set-piece bout.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clistenes View Post
    And not everybody could afford to spend a lot of time training in the gymnasium. There is a difference between the ideal the Greek set for themselves and their reality. People like Socrates and Plato actually had an aristocratic mindset, and the ideal citizen they described was modelled after the athenian upper class, but many artisans, merchants and farmers had to work long hours.

    Also, the term "yeomen" isn't really appropiate for Greece. During the classic period Athenian society was, roughly speaking, divided into rich landowners who had labourers work their land, city-dwelling merchants, artisans and sailors, and poor farmers who owned their own land but had to word hard and didn't had leisure time. Free farmers became poorer and poorer during the classic period, losing a lost of land to rich landowners, creating social tensions, until most free farmers were very poor people working the worst lands who couldn't afford to buy hoplite armor.
    Maybe, but the minimum requirement for a hoplite wasn't a full panoply, but a shield, helmet and spear. That isn't as high a bar as also having cuirass/thorax, greaves, possibly arm and thigh plates.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vinyadan View Post
    Do you have a source for this?
    I was thinking of countless Athenian and other Greek generals, from Miltiades down, who all fought on foot (often in the centre of the front rank) even though they were of the highest social classes and could ride.

    Add to that the low proportion of cavalry in the battles of the Peloponnesian War compared to those of Philip/Alexander. There's no way the aristocracy were only represented in the tithe of cavalry present.

    I don't believe anyone would have cleaved strictly to the Solonian divisions, there would be aristocrats too impoverised to fight in the saddle and richer artisans who nevertheless continued in the traditions of their fathers and fought in the phalanx.
    Wushu Open Reloaded
    Actual Play: The Shadow of the Sun (Acrozatarim's WFRP campaign) as Pawel Hals and Mass: the Effecting - Transcendence as Russell Ortiz.
    Now running: Tyche's Favourites, a historical ACKS campaign set around Massalia 300BC.
    In Sanity We Trust Productions - our podcasting site where you can hear our dulcet tones, updated almost every week.

  7. - Top - End - #997
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Slovakia
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Clistenes View Post
    Nowadays most books acknowledge that gunpowder was invented in China and it was brought to Europe by Muslims, but it still frustrates me to no end when Roger Bacon is said to be the "inventor of gunpowder in Europe" or the "introductor of gunpowder to Europe...".
    We actually have a pretty solid date for the first use of gunpowder in Europe, 11 April 1241, at Mohi. The slight problem is that it was used against European troops, and that some of the western historians took some significant liberties with interpreting the information we have, some claiming that gunpowder was then spreading in Hungary.

    What Carmen Miserabile basically tells us is that mongols used hwacha against Hungarian army to panic them, and that's about it. There are indeed records of some later use of mongol mercenaries in Hungary (though again, some historians tend to claim Ladislaus the Cuiman employed them on a large scale, which he almost certainly did not, he employed the cuimans), but nothing that proves or disproves hwachas or other gunpowder being used by them. If anything, Hungary was as dramatically unprepared for Hussite tactics as the rest of Europe.

    If I had to make a guess, gunpowder came to Europe through attempts at Franco-Mongol alliance, and as such arrived at first to kingdoms that had a keen interest and connections in Outremer - France (Templars), Italy (Papacy and Venice ferrying people for hefty fees), England (mostly because of Lionheart nostalgia) and HRE (Teutonic knights). Countries that were either in the middle of succession crisis at the time (Hungary) or separated by geography and disinterest (Poland, Scandinavian kingdoms) acquired it later from their neighbours.

    This also means that gunpowder wasn't arguably brought to Europe by Muslims, seeing as mongols weren't Muslim until Ghazan's conversion circa 1300.
    That which does not kill you made a tactical error.

  8. - Top - End - #998
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    gkathellar's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Beyond the Ninth Wave
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Haighus View Post
    That isn't the bit I mean- why would Communist China capture a soldier from Communist Russia? There must be a brief period where the soldier was captured by the nationalists in China before Mao took over.
    In general, the various "Socialist" powers were allies of opportunity, if that. There is a strong argument to be made that they only ever sided with one another because they all had the United States breathing down their necks. There's a great quote from the movie Fog of War illustrating this:

    "Mr. McNamara, You must never have read a history book. If you'd had, you'd know we weren't pawns of the Chinese or the Russians. McNamara, didn't you know that? Don't you understand that we have been fighting the Chinese for 1000 years? We were fighting for our independence. And we would fight to the last man. And we were determined to do so. And no amount of bombing, no amount of U.S. pressure would ever have stopped us." - Xuân Thuỷ, Foreign Minister of North Vietnam (1963 to 1965), during a 1995 meeting former US Secretary of Defense, serving from 1961 to 1968, Robert S. McNamara
    The point being: the Cold War cannot be simplified down to a conflict between capitalists and communists (a descriptor that may not accurately describe any of the parties involved).
    Last edited by gkathellar; 2017-12-06 at 12:14 PM.

  9. - Top - End - #999
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Vinyadan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Gender
    Male

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

    Generals don't make for a good argument, I think. There are two reasons for this, the first one being that generals are, by definition, an exception within an army. The second one is that, in Athens, the strategoi and the archon polemarchos were chosen by the city, and these roles would surely have overruled membership to a corps.

    However, I do recognize that things weren't anywhere near as clear cut as I stated earlier. I have taken a look around. Apparently, the Athenian cavalry could have amounted to just 90 men before the Persian Wars, which suggests either that very few of the hippeis actually served, or that many preferred to serve elsewhere. It might however be worth wondering whether Athens needed a huge army before 490. Anyway, nothing sure is known from this time about Athenian cavalry, with different scholars giving a radically different reading of the few data we have (iconography in particular).
    Later the cavalry was expanded up to 1000 riders + 200 horse archers. The increase was gradual and took place over many decades. What I find interesting is that the horses were property of the riders, but would be refunded by Athens if they were lost in the fighting. Documents reporting the value of the single horses have been found. These riders were not just Athenians, but also aristocrats from allied cities.

    Anyway, numbers are probably the best argument for free choice among hippeis, since Athens was in a position to pretty much never run out of its allotted horsemen, even with free choice. I am not as incredulous as I was, although I keep some doubts. The thing is that I see the presence of such a class as a way to make sure that there was enough equipment and horses. So I wonder if a rich artisan that didn't want to be a rider or waste time on a stable could instead pay a tax equivalent to the cost of equipping a rider and keeping his horse(s).

    As a side note, an impoverished aristocrat would have fallen from hippeus to zeugite. That kind of mobility was probably expected.

    The different sets of skill between boxing and warfare was already recognised in Homer. See the Patroclus games. It would be interesting to see what the Olympic poets thought.

    Concerning the development of the fleet, those aren't the relevant dates. Around 500 Athens had about 50 penteconters, and sent 20 ships to the Ionian Revolt. Themistocles entered politics around 493 and had the port moved to Piraeus. But the huge enlargement of the fleet became possible in 483, after the discovery of the silver, after which Themistocles managed to get over 200 new ships built. This was made possible by the pressure of war upon the voters, first against Aegina, and then the expected one against Persia. Otherwise, the silver would probably have been distributed to the citizens. I think that it was the fleet which strengthened democracy, but democracy didn't cause the construction of the fleet. By comparison, Corinth wasn't a democracy and developed its naval power under tyrants and an olygarchy.
    Quote Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien, 1955
    I thought Tom Bombadil dreadful — but worse still was the announcer's preliminary remarks that Goldberry was his daughter (!), and that Willowman was an ally of Mordor (!!).

  10. - Top - End - #1000
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Clistenes's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Martin Greywolf View Post
    We actually have a pretty solid date for the first use of gunpowder in Europe, 11 April 1241, at Mohi. The slight problem is that it was used against European troops, and that some of the western historians took some significant liberties with interpreting the information we have, some claiming that gunpowder was then spreading in Hungary.

    What Carmen Miserabile basically tells us is that mongols used hwacha against Hungarian army to panic them, and that's about it. There are indeed records of some later use of mongol mercenaries in Hungary (though again, some historians tend to claim Ladislaus the Cuiman employed them on a large scale, which he almost certainly did not, he employed the cuimans), but nothing that proves or disproves hwachas or other gunpowder being used by them. If anything, Hungary was as dramatically unprepared for Hussite tactics as the rest of Europe.

    If I had to make a guess, gunpowder came to Europe through attempts at Franco-Mongol alliance, and as such arrived at first to kingdoms that had a keen interest and connections in Outremer - France (Templars), Italy (Papacy and Venice ferrying people for hefty fees), England (mostly because of Lionheart nostalgia) and HRE (Teutonic knights). Countries that were either in the middle of succession crisis at the time (Hungary) or separated by geography and disinterest (Poland, Scandinavian kingdoms) acquired it later from their neighbours.

    This also means that gunpowder wasn't arguably brought to Europe by Muslims, seeing as mongols weren't Muslim until Ghazan's conversion circa 1300.
    If you follow the link I posted, primitive cannons were used by the Andalusian garrison against Castilian troops during the Siege of Niebla, in 1262. Technically speaking, the tiny kingdom of Niebla was part of Europe, even if it was a muslim state.

    And it wasn't even a big, rich, well-connected kingdom; it was a tiny, remote kingdom, the westernmost muslim state in the world. The knowledge of how to make gunpowder and cannons had to cross the whole muslim world before reaching Niebla, and there were many states who were able to pay more to experts for their knowledge. I think there were many people in the Muslim world who knew how to make and use gunpowder and primitive cannons.

    If you compare the cultural and knowledge exchange between Christian Europeans and Arab-speaking Muslims and between Christian Europeans and Mongols (muslim or otherwise), the flow of knowledge from the Mongols was almost neligible, when compared to the knowledge adquired from the Arab-speaking Muslim world...
    Last edited by Clistenes; 2017-12-06 at 03:07 PM.

  11. - Top - End - #1001
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Clistenes's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiero View Post
    There's no maybe about it, the notion that stirrups are required for a couched charge is nonsense. Alexander's Companions were charging-home, heavy cavalry, none of them had stirrups. Their primary purpose was to give horse-archers a good seat.
    Again: Even if stirrups doesn't make such a big difference, you still need a lot of training to become an efficent horseman, which was the point we were speaking about. And the Companions were mostly made up of Macedonian aristocracy, not of artisans or peasants who had to work many hours a day to make a living...

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiero View Post
    There isn't really a lot of time between the re-establishment of democracy in 510BC and the Ionian Revolt in 499BC, so I think the point is rather moot.
    Solon, on the other hand, became ruler of Athens almost 100 years before the Ionian Revolt, so the evolution towards democracy started long before that... And the Ekklesia and the hoplite soldier existed long before Solon. The shift from an aristocratic, patrimonial form government towards a democratic one was gradual, over several centuries...

    EDIT: And anyways, Greek warfare kept evolving after 510 BC. As I said, there were 152 years between Marathon and Chaeronea, and warfare evolved a lot in between.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiero View Post
    For the most part, Greece itself didn't have professional armies in the Hellenistic era, it still relied on citizen-militias. They changed back and forth between hoplite/pike/thureophoros models as they won and lost in conflicts. The closest anyone came to professionalism was if they turned mercenary.

    Even Alexander didn't have a lot of use for Greeks on his campaigns; the fighting was done by Makedonians and various allied nations, Greeks might be put on a flank or more often used as garrisons to hold strong points while the rest of the army moved on.
    Well, when I spoke about greek warfare during the Hellenistic period, I was speaking of all the Hellenistic kingdoms, and not just Greece proper.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiero View Post
    The professionals in the Hellenistic were Makedonian settlers and other Hellenes and Hellenising peoples given grants of land in return for service. And mercenaries.
    My understanding is that there was a core of full-time professional elite soldiers, while the farmer-soldiers were more like reserves. And the number of mercenaries increased over time, becoming a large percentage of some armies, and even the bulk of the troops in some cases...

    Anyways, all (or at least most) Hellenistic states turned to recruit natives (hellenized or not) over time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiero View Post
    No they weren't different, that's a modern division that doesn't apply. Athletes trained for the Olympics and other major games, which contained a host of martial events in them; running in and out of armour, throwing javelins and discus, boxing/wrestling (pankration), fighting in armour, horse-racing. All those events were practise for war. We have the example of the athlete Dioxippus famously beating one of Alexander's soldiers in a set-piece bout.
    And you will notice that fencing with spear or sword wasn't an Olympic discipline, neither was archery nor mounted archery, nor throwing javelins at the target, nor jousting... None of the Olympic disciplines trained citizen-soldiers in the use of real weapons of war (not even javelin-throwing; they didn't practice accuracy...).
    Last edited by Clistenes; 2017-12-06 at 03:23 PM.

  12. - Top - End - #1002
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Vinyadan View Post
    Generals don't make for a good argument, I think. There are two reasons for this, the first one being that generals are, by definition, an exception within an army. The second one is that, in Athens, the strategoi and the archon polemarchos were chosen by the city, and these roles would surely have overruled membership to a corps.

    However, I do recognize that things weren't anywhere near as clear cut as I stated earlier. I have taken a look around. Apparently, the Athenian cavalry could have amounted to just 90 men before the Persian Wars, which suggests either that very few of the hippeis actually served, or that many preferred to serve elsewhere. It might however be worth wondering whether Athens needed a huge army before 490. Anyway, nothing sure is known from this time about Athenian cavalry, with different scholars giving a radically different reading of the few data we have (iconography in particular).
    Later the cavalry was expanded up to 1000 riders + 200 horse archers. The increase was gradual and took place over many decades. What I find interesting is that the horses were property of the riders, but would be refunded by Athens if they were lost in the fighting. Documents reporting the value of the single horses have been found. These riders were not just Athenians, but also aristocrats from allied cities.

    Anyway, numbers are probably the best argument for free choice among hippeis, since Athens was in a position to pretty much never run out of its allotted horsemen, even with free choice. I am not as incredulous as I was, although I keep some doubts. The thing is that I see the presence of such a class as a way to make sure that there was enough equipment and horses. So I wonder if a rich artisan that didn't want to be a rider or waste time on a stable could instead pay a tax equivalent to the cost of equipping a rider and keeping his horse(s).

    As a side note, an impoverished aristocrat would have fallen from hippeus to zeugite. That kind of mobility was probably expected.
    Did they have an equivalent official to the Roman censors actively looking to remove people from classes they no longer qualified for? More pertinently, even if they did, were they immune to political pressures from impoverished, but still influential families staying their hand?

    I think the reality is that mobility would be stymied, both by people working not to fall from their traditional class, but also those higher up the ladder trying to keep those below them down.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vinyadan View Post
    The different sets of skill between boxing and warfare was already recognised in Homer. See the Patroclus games. It would be interesting to see what the Olympic poets thought.
    Why would they have bothered adding the hoplitodromos (foot-race in full armour), if there was no linkage between the games and war?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vinyadan View Post
    Concerning the development of the fleet, those aren't the relevant dates. Around 500 Athens had about 50 penteconters, and sent 20 ships to the Ionian Revolt. Themistocles entered politics around 493 and had the port moved to Piraeus. But the huge enlargement of the fleet became possible in 483, after the discovery of the silver, after which Themistocles managed to get over 200 new ships built. This was made possible by the pressure of war upon the voters, first against Aegina, and then the expected one against Persia. Otherwise, the silver would probably have been distributed to the citizens. I think that it was the fleet which strengthened democracy, but democracy didn't cause the construction of the fleet. By comparison, Corinth wasn't a democracy and developed its naval power under tyrants and an olygarchy.
    Cornith didn't seem to have anything like the same volume of rowing manpower available that Athens did. Democracy didn't cause the construction of the fleet, but it certainly seemed to encourage lots of lower-class men to volunteer to participate. Even after defeats Athens didn't seem to have trouble raising new fleets (especially from a manpower perspective).

    Quote Originally Posted by Clistenes View Post
    Again: Even if stirrups doesn't make such a big difference, you still need a lot of training to become an efficent horseman, which was the point we were speaking about. And the Companions were mostly made up of Macedonian aristocracy, not of artisans or peasants who had to work many hours a day to make a living...
    I have made a point, throughout this discussion, of both distinguishing the Thessalians from other Greeks, and by extension distinguishing the Makedonians (who copied the Thessalian cavalry traditions) from Greeks as well. Yes, I know the Companions weren't artisans, my point in raising them here was to debunk the notion that you need stirrups to charge home.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clistenes View Post
    Solon, on the other hand, became ruler of Athens almost 100 years before the Ionian Revolt, so the evolution towards democracy started long before that... And the Ekklesia and the hoplite soldier existed long before Solon. The shift from an aristocratic, patrimonial form government towards a democratic one was gradual, over several centuries...

    EDIT: And anyways, Greek warfare kept evolving after 510 BC. As I said, there were 152 years between Marathon and Chaeronea, and warfare evolved a lot in between.
    Yes, and it continued to do so afterwards, even while the Diadochi slugged it out. As I said, city-states had a non-linear evolution between three potential models, where they sometimes moved back and forth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clistenes View Post
    Well, when I spoke about greek warfare during the Hellenistic period, I was speaking of all the Hellenistic kingdoms, and not just Greece proper.
    That's Hellenistic warfare, not merely Greek. The distinction matters, because a lot of the military pre-occupation of the Diadochi (based outside Greece) surrounded how to recruit Makedonian settlers to fill their phalanx, because natives weren't as good. Or they didn't want to transmit the knowledge for fear of it being used against them, such as the Machimoi pikemen who rebelled after being deployed by the Ptolemaioi at Raphia (triggering half a century of unrest).

    Greece wasn't the front line of the conflicts of the Hellenistic era either, that happened in Syria and Anatolia. They were sheltered from many of the pressures driving evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Clistenes View Post
    My understanding is that there was a core of full-time professional elite soldiers, while the farmer-soldiers were more like reserves. And the number of mercenaries increased over time, becoming a large percentage of some armies, and even the bulk of the troops in some cases...

    Anyways, all (or at least most) Hellenistic states turned to recruit natives (hellenized or not) over time.
    Those farmer-soldiers were the colonists - kleruchoi or katoikoi - like pre-Marian Roman legionaries, they were expected to have free time to devote to training, holding sizable grants of land. They didn't just settle Makedonians either - Galatian Celts, Thracians, Thessalians, Kretans, all sorts were settled to provide a reliable source of manpower. They were the core of the infantry, both phalanx and other elements.

    As above, the roles those natives were recruited in were distinct. The core heavy infantry was Makedonian/Greek/very Hellenised other. Other natives served as cavalry (the Seleukids had lots of very good quality satrapal cavalry available of all classes) or light infantry.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clistenes View Post
    And you will notice that fencing with spear or sword wasn't an Olympic discipline, neither was archery nor mounted archery, nor throwing javelins at the target, nor jousting... None of the Olympic disciplines trained citizen-soldiers in the use of real weapons of war (not even javelin-throwing; they didn't practice accuracy...).
    Pankration most certainly did, since it was the primary set of close-in fighting techniques. The hoplitodromos was a run in armour (full hoplite panoply) - you can't do that effectively and hope to win if you don't train in armour. If athletes were of no use, why would the story of Dioxippus have made such a stir?
    Wushu Open Reloaded
    Actual Play: The Shadow of the Sun (Acrozatarim's WFRP campaign) as Pawel Hals and Mass: the Effecting - Transcendence as Russell Ortiz.
    Now running: Tyche's Favourites, a historical ACKS campaign set around Massalia 300BC.
    In Sanity We Trust Productions - our podcasting site where you can hear our dulcet tones, updated almost every week.

  13. - Top - End - #1003
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Blackhawk748's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Tharggy, on Tellene
    Gender
    Male

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

    Before i go diggin through the internet, can anyone recommend a good training manual for the English Bill? I think im doing it right but id like to confirm as well as know more about the fighting style.
    Quote Originally Posted by Guigarci View Post
    "Mr. Aochev, tear down this wall!" Ro'n Ad-Ri'Gan, Bard
    Tiefling Sorcerer by Linkele
    Spoiler: Homebrew stuff
    Show
    My Spell, My Weapon, Im a God

    My Post Apocalyptic Alternate Timeline setting: Amerhikan Wasteland


    My Historical Stuff channel

  14. - Top - End - #1004
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Batou1976's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Vengerberg
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackhawk748 View Post
    Before i go diggin through the internet, can anyone recommend a good training manual for the English Bill? I think im doing it right but id like to confirm as well as know more about the fighting style.
    I'm not aware of any manuals devoted specifically to the bill. I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't any. Instead, your best bet is probably to do as the old masters of defense recommended and study the longsword first and become proficient with it; from this you will become competent in the basic elements of fighting, and from there you could work on practicing with the pollax. Once you know what you're doing when it comes to other weapons, you could likely extrapolate how to use a bill without the need for a manual devoted specifically to it (and I believe this is why most European weapons didn't have manuals peculiar to them but instead the great bulk of surviving fechtbucher concentrate on the longsword;).

    ARMA has lots of free resources on its website if you want to check it out.
    Mean People Suck

    The Lord of the Rings is not a trilogy; words have meanings, and cannot be arbitrarily redefined just because you're lazy and/or careless. Or, put another way: Infer we shoe to gobble the blueberry jazz musician? Spleen! Water crackers pontificate when sebum roasts merrily for the lagoon.

    You can either roll a DIE (singular), or multiple DICE (plural).

    Association for Renaissance Martial Arts

  15. - Top - End - #1005
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Batou1976's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Vengerberg
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Deepbluediver View Post
    Damn, now I feel compelled to start working out stats for guns in my setting.
    You really should. Imagine the look on your player's faces the first time some armored "knight" comes charging at them and instead of swinging a sword at them, he stops (safely out of melee range, of course), takes aim, and fires a shot at them from a wheellock pistol.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deepbluediver View Post
    I figured that magical weapons might necessitate the production of magical armor, so the "arms race" could continue and produce plate and such without firearms and it would still feel valid, but all this is really interesting and hard to argue against. Especially since I like high-magic settings, and it wouldn't be too hard to imagine an alchemical gunpowder analogue.
    Maybe I'll stat guns like I was thinking about an Arbelast- large damage but with a long reload time, so it's really only attractive to people in siege-situations and maybe massed-combat. Definitely not the sort of thing adventurers in small-group or solo-combat situations would favor.
    You don't say what system you're using, but Pathfinder already has a splatbook with stats for gunpowder weapons, and I remember seeing a section about them in the 5E DMG as well.
    If you're using some other system and are going to have to stat them yourself, I'd suggest doing some homework on the history of firearms, since the spectrum of earlier technologies didn't all exist concurrently, and some of them didn't gain a whole lot of traction for a reason.
    Mean People Suck

    The Lord of the Rings is not a trilogy; words have meanings, and cannot be arbitrarily redefined just because you're lazy and/or careless. Or, put another way: Infer we shoe to gobble the blueberry jazz musician? Spleen! Water crackers pontificate when sebum roasts merrily for the lagoon.

    You can either roll a DIE (singular), or multiple DICE (plural).

    Association for Renaissance Martial Arts

  16. - Top - End - #1006
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2012

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiero View Post
    Pankration most certainly did, since it was the primary set of close-in fighting techniques. The hoplitodromos was a run in armour (full hoplite panoply) - you can't do that effectively and hope to win if you don't train in armour. If athletes were of no use, why would the story of Dioxippus have made such a stir?
    That's sort of the point though. The classical Greeks heavily emphasized the importance of physical fitness (developing the perfect body) and courage for hoplites and hoplite combat, but mentions of actual weapons training with the spear or sword or formation drills are practically nonexistant until the rise of the Macedonians.

  17. - Top - End - #1007
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by rrgg View Post
    That's sort of the point though. The classical Greeks heavily emphasized the importance of physical fitness (developing the perfect body) and courage for hoplites and hoplite combat, but mentions of actual weapons training with the spear or sword or formation drills are practically nonexistant until the rise of the Macedonians.
    The existence of the pyrrichios, which predates the hoplite, would suggest otherwise on formation drills being non-existent.
    Wushu Open Reloaded
    Actual Play: The Shadow of the Sun (Acrozatarim's WFRP campaign) as Pawel Hals and Mass: the Effecting - Transcendence as Russell Ortiz.
    Now running: Tyche's Favourites, a historical ACKS campaign set around Massalia 300BC.
    In Sanity We Trust Productions - our podcasting site where you can hear our dulcet tones, updated almost every week.

  18. - Top - End - #1008
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

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

    Might be a little bit outside the scope of the thread, but..

    What exactly do modern attack-dogs and security-dogs do when they've reached their target? I know they bark loudly, bite, and scratch, but is it generally to maul, or to immobilize with agony while humans move in? How often do people get knocked down by these animals in close quarters? Which extremities are their favorites, or would they be trained to attack specific areas? Is more of the dog's work done through terror, or the dog's physical power?

    How do trained dogs fare against armed and well-armored humans? We can assume the human is holding or wearing an automatic rifle or pistol (which he is trained to use) along with a backpack or duffel-bag laden with gear, is already in close quarters with the dog, and is wearing military-style armor designed to protect against firearms rather than animals. He also has a knife on his person. Would a properly-trained dog simply work around armor and bite less-armored areas? Will a few quick body-shots disable an attacking canine? We can also do a variant where the dog is wearing a typical armored vest.

  19. - Top - End - #1009
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Mike_G's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Laughing with the sinners
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Slipperychicken View Post
    Might be a little bit outside the scope of the thread, but..

    What exactly do modern attack-dogs and security-dogs do when they've reached their target? I know they bark loudly, bite, and scratch, but is it generally to maul, or to immobilize with agony while humans move in? How often do people get knocked down by these animals in close quarters? Which extremities are their favorites, or would they be trained to attack specific areas? Is more of the dog's work done through terror, or the dog's physical power?

    How do trained dogs fare against armed and well-armored humans? We can assume the human is holding or wearing an automatic rifle or pistol (which he is trained to use) along with a backpack or duffel-bag laden with gear, is already in close quarters with the dog, and is wearing military-style armor designed to protect against firearms rather than animals. He also has a knife on his person. Would a properly-trained dog simply work around armor and bite less-armored areas? Will a few quick body-shots disable an attacking canine? We can also do a variant where the dog is wearing a typical armored vest.
    The dog is boned.

    Dogs aren't trained to avoid armor. Not sure they can be. Police use them to attack, since they generally face unarmored people who will run from a vicious dog, and they can go places a human officer can't. Military dogs are used to sniff out stuff, not attack, usually.

    A man with a knife can beat a dog easy. A man with a gun can beat a dozen dogs.

    Now, most body armor is for the vitals, and if a dog bites the limbs it might miss the armor, but if a dog bites my leg and I have a knife, I'm limping home, but the dog is dead.
    Last edited by Mike_G; 2017-12-06 at 10:22 PM.
    Out of wine comes truth, out of truth the vision clears, and with vision soon appears a grand design. From the grand design we can understand the world. And when you understand the world, you need a lot more wine.


  20. - Top - End - #1010
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Gender
    Male

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

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDD6Yerl0k0

    Keep in mind in the field they have armor and mounted cameras too.

  21. - Top - End - #1011
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Slipperychicken View Post
    How do trained dogs fare against armed and well-armored humans?

    We can assume the human is holding or wearing an automatic rifle or pistol (which he is trained to use) along with a backpack or duffel-bag laden with gear, is already in close quarters with the dog, and is wearing military-style armor designed to protect against firearms rather than animals. He also has a knife on his person.
    In this scenario: extremely badly.

    A big attack dog is an alarming foe for a typical unarmed human, while there are guys who could probably take on any dog and win (grappling is a thing, so is a big brain), I certainly wouldn't want to try it.

    An armoured soldier with a knife, let alone a pistol, is going to destroy any dog I can imagine at least 90% of the time. The dog has to get to the neck or face, through an armoured arm, while the human shoots it basically anywhere multiple times and then if he drops his pistol, he stabs it multiple times.

    Humans generally mass more than a large guard dog, can grapple, a knife is a nastier weapon than a bite, and a knife vs. dog inflicts way more damage than teeth vs. armour. The dog has negligible advantages, I guess it has better balance due to 4 legs and can probably retreat if beaten but not fatally wounded. Everything else is in favour of the human.

    I don't have any relevant training and I'd take on any dog you want in these circumstances, for a decent pay day of course. A soldier or anyone with decent unarmed or knife skills or any aggressive fit man would waltz it.

    If dogs could savage armed and armoured men, they would have been used extensively on the battlefield.
    Last edited by Mr Beer; 2017-12-07 at 03:58 PM.
    Re: 100 Things to Beware of that Every DM Should Know

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay R View Post
    93. No matter what the character sheet say, there are only 3 PC alignments: Lawful Snotty, Neutral Greedy, and Chaotic Backstabbing.

  22. - Top - End - #1012
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    gkathellar's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Beyond the Ninth Wave
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike_G View Post
    The dog is boned.

    Dogs aren't trained to avoid armor. Not sure they can be. Police use them to attack, since they generally face unarmored people who will run from a vicious dog, and they can go places a human officer can't. Military dogs are used to sniff out stuff, not attack, usually.

    A man with a knife can beat a dog easy. A man with a gun can beat a dozen dogs.

    Now, most body armor is for the vitals, and if a dog bites the limbs it might miss the armor, but if a dog bites my leg and I have a knife, I'm limping home, but the dog is dead.
    Pfft, clearly you've not seen the greatest movie of our time.
    Last edited by gkathellar; 2017-12-07 at 04:58 AM.

  23. - Top - End - #1013
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Yora's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Germany

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

    One dog against one armed human is pretty hopeless for the dog.

    But several dogs jumping on one human at once would probably look very different. That is an important distinction to make. Modern military armor would help some, but I am not sure how much.
    How much a gun would help would highly depend on how many dogs and how early the human becomes aware of them. Single dog and a pistol would again be no fight. Four dogs charging around a corner on someone with a rifle would do much better. The first one might get shot, but if the other three can jump on the human, the rifle won't be any good after that. Knife would be great, if you don't lose it in the struggle.

    The Romans used war dogs, but there is no documentation on what they were used for. Guard dogs to warn of ambush would probably be the most likely case.
    We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.

    Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying

  24. - Top - End - #1014
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Vinyadan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Gender
    Male

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

    Attack dogs aren't really trained to kill. Why use a dog, when there are far cheaper alternatives, like a gun?
    But attack dogs can be trained to aggressively subdue an opponent, be it a man running away, or a bad guy who just pulled a gun or a knife. In this case, however, the point is that the dog isn't supposed to be there alone. So it isn't really dog vs human, more like dog protecting (armed) owner from human.
    A well trained dog will attack the upper arm. A less well trained dog will aim for more external parts, like the hands and lower arm.
    Once the dog has grabbed the guy in the upper body, it's easy to make him fall. Since we are so tall with a small base, we don't have much equilibrium. A large dog is between 40 and 70 kg (it can be more, but it depends on race). When it bites the guy, it doesn't go for many bites: just one, then holds on, while pulling and pushing back and forth.

    Now, a man with a weapon that sees the dog running at him won't have any trouble shooting it. The police sometimes has to do this. A knife isn't as good, but, if it is pulled out while already being bitten, it should win you the fight.

    There were other dogs in the past that were eg trained to find and hold escaped slaves. I don't know how that exactly went.
    Quote Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien, 1955
    I thought Tom Bombadil dreadful — but worse still was the announcer's preliminary remarks that Goldberry was his daughter (!), and that Willowman was an ally of Mordor (!!).

  25. - Top - End - #1015
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Deepbluediver's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The US of A

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Slipperychicken View Post
    What exactly do modern attack-dogs and security-dogs do when they've reached their target? I know they bark loudly, bite, and scratch, but is it generally to maul, or to immobilize with agony while humans move in? How often do people get knocked down by these animals in close quarters? Which extremities are their favorites, or would they be trained to attack specific areas? Is more of the dog's work done through terror, or the dog's physical power?

    How do trained dogs fare against armed and well-armored humans? We can assume the human is holding or wearing an automatic rifle or pistol (which he is trained to use) along with a backpack or duffel-bag laden with gear, is already in close quarters with the dog, and is wearing military-style armor designed to protect against firearms rather than animals. He also has a knife on his person. Would a properly-trained dog simply work around armor and bite less-armored areas? Will a few quick body-shots disable an attacking canine? We can also do a variant where the dog is wearing a typical armored vest.
    I recall reading one account of police trying to determine if a dog had been used as the "murder weapon" in a crime- I think the man was accused of setting it on a woman. He claimed it was just an accident, and the police had to prove it had been intentional. Apparently the dog was very sweet and friendly, until they police brought out one of those padded suits used for dog-training. And just on sight the dog started snarling and barking and trying to bite it. Unfortunately since the police were never able to figure out what word was the "attack" command, they had to destroy the animal because they couldn't be certain no one wouldn't accidentally trigger it.

    So dogs can definitely be trained to attack specific things- I don't know if they have the mental capacity though to recognize and AVOID a wide range of armor.

    What might be easier is to just train the dogs to go for arms and legs, which tend to be less armored anyway. AFAIK, wolves mainly bring down large prey by encircling it and biting at the legs and hindquarters until it goes into shock or collapses from bloodloss. Even if a dog couldn't kill an armored enemy on it's own, it might trip them up, slow them down, or even just distract them at the crucial moment. Given how many resources it takes to train a dog and how easily one might be dispatched with a single thrust or shot, I don't know if it's worth it (I'm sure people have tried armoring dogs, but I don't know how effective it could be) to do on a large scale, but in a more small-group setting like scouting parties they might be useful.

    The other thing you might try is getting dogs to attack the enemy's horses. War-horses are usually pretty well trained, but unless they were specifically trained against dogs, a snarling pack might be enough to panic a horse and break a charge, or at least trip, distract, slow down, etc. The key would be getting the dogs to only go for enemy horses if both sides are using them. Maybe you could put bells on your horse's ankles or something like that, and teach the dogs to only go for unbelled ankles.
    Last edited by Deepbluediver; 2017-12-07 at 08:54 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rater202 View Post
    It's not called common because the sense is common, it's called common because it's about common things.
    Homebrew Extended Signature!

  26. - Top - End - #1016
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Yora View Post
    One dog against one armed human is pretty hopeless for the dog.

    But several dogs jumping on one human at once would probably look very different. That is an important distinction to make. Modern military armor would help some, but I am not sure how much.
    How much a gun would help would highly depend on how many dogs and how early the human becomes aware of them. Single dog and a pistol would again be no fight. Four dogs charging around a corner on someone with a rifle would do much better. The first one might get shot, but if the other three can jump on the human, the rifle won't be any good after that. Knife would be great, if you don't lose it in the struggle.

    The Romans used war dogs, but there is no documentation on what they were used for. Guard dogs to warn of ambush would probably be the most likely case.
    Dogs, called Greyhounds but obviously a different creature than the modern racing dog, were a major military asset for the Conquistadors and definitely terorrized and killed a lot of Indians including armed ones. Their value to the Spanish was immediately understood and exploited. It was considered that 3 or 4 soldiers in a village were vulnerable but with a dog the Indians were too afraid to start trouble.

    I agree though for dogs it's numbers that make the difference. A single dog can't deal with a bear or a really large boar, but 6 or 7 fairly innocuous looking hunting dogs working together can take one down or at least keep it at bay and confused, quite routinely. You can watch a lot of videos on youtube particularly where hunters are using knives or spears.


    This is going to sound crazy but when I was a young man, I used to walk or skateboard to my friends house through an area which was Skid Row back then, (now a fancy yuppie area). There was a big bridge there and people used to fight dogs in empty lots under the bridge. The dogs that lost, if they lived, were often let loose and formed scary packs of pit bulls, rottweilers, German Shepherds and dobermans. Quite aggressive.

    Several people were bitten until finally after the dogs killed a homeless guy, the city went in there and shot a bunch of them and captured the rest. I myself 3 times was chased by small packs of them and had to climb up on top of a car. They couldn't get me on top of the car and when they tried I'd swing my skateboard or backpack at them. I was **** scared the first time but then like with a lot of other dangers back then it became almost routine. They couldn't get you when you were on the car.

    Even though those were former fighting dogs though I don't think they were anywhere near as mean or determined as a police dog or a Roman mastiff. If they had caught me on the ground they might have killed me but they were sort of half playing with me i think.

    Still pretty scary experience and I saw, and felt, how they could worry at you from multiple directions. Thankfully we apes have the ability to climb and work in that third dimension dogs don't understand so well.

    G

  27. - Top - End - #1017
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    gkathellar's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Beyond the Ninth Wave
    Gender
    Male

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

    In general canines are not really built for fighting. Compared to say, a cougar, or hell, a bull cow or a large buck, a dog or even a wolf is stiff, poorly armed, relatively light, and not built for power.

    That said, they're a lot like people: relatively keen senses in general, tons of endurance over long distances, strong cooperative instincts, and a tendency to form tight social bonds.
    Quote Originally Posted by KKL
    D&D is its own momentum and does its own fantasy. It emulates itself in an incestuous mess.

  28. - Top - End - #1018
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2009

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

    one thing to keep in mind is dogs are fast and have good night vision if it has been trained not to warn you by barking, then in the proper environment you may only become aware of it once it has already attacked. Another thing to remember is psychology if the target has not been trained to deal with dogs then the panic can be significantly more effective then a dogs raw abilities may suggest.

  29. - Top - End - #1019
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Galloglaich View Post
    I myself 3 times was chased by small packs of them and had to climb up on top of a car. They couldn't get me on top of the car and when they tried I'd swing my skateboard or backpack at them. I was **** scared the first time but then like with a lot of other dangers back then it became almost routine. They couldn't get you when you were on the car.
    I've been surrounded by a pack of dogs twice, both times I was able to continue in the general direction I was heading by making aggressive lunges and swings at a dog every time I was near enough. Was particularly careful to keep checking behind me and try to kick ones circling round.

    In retrospect they probably weren't dangerous to an adult, there was no concerted effort to overwhelm me, but still. One of the times this happened it was in India and I really didn't want to have to go get rabies shots.
    Last edited by Mr Beer; 2017-12-07 at 04:06 PM.
    Re: 100 Things to Beware of that Every DM Should Know

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay R View Post
    93. No matter what the character sheet say, there are only 3 PC alignments: Lawful Snotty, Neutral Greedy, and Chaotic Backstabbing.

  30. - Top - End - #1020
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Clistenes's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Galloglaich View Post
    Dogs, called Greyhounds but obviously a different creature than the modern racing dog, were a major military asset for the Conquistadors and definitely terorrized and killed a lot of Indians including armed ones. Their value to the Spanish was immediately understood and exploited. It was considered that 3 or 4 soldiers in a village were vulnerable but with a dog the Indians were too afraid to start trouble.
    G
    The Conquistador's "greyhounds" were big game hunting dogs, similar to wolfhounds, deerhounds and borzois; not the modern ones, that are bred for their looks and to win prizes at shows, but the old landraces that were used to hunt wolves, deer and similar...

    They also had "alanos", which were big game catch dogs similar to argentine mastiffs used to hunt boars and bears. The alanos were the dogs who were expected to fight armed men who stood their ground, while sighthounds were used to chase natives who were running away.

    They equiped their dogs with leather and cotton armor, good enough to stop crappy native arrows, spears and javelins.

    And psychological warfare played a big part on it. Natives were terrified of european dogs, which they saw as alien human-eating beasts similar to wolves or cougars (they didn't have big dogs). On top of that, the native americans from the Caribbean and Mexico didn't have mounts, beasts of burden, working beasts, shepherd dogs or even specialized hunting dogs, so they weren't used to watch trained animals acting in a way that looked intelligent. The sight of a weird beast wearing armor, following verbal orders during battle and taking cover from arrows must have seem unnatural to them...

    Another advantage dogs had was their ability to detect hidden enemies and to guard the camp at night, preventing both ambushes and nocturnal attacks.

    And as somebody said, dogs could fight in pitch darkness. Becerrillo (Little Calf) was said to have killed thirty-three enemies during a nocturnal battle; it seems the natives assaulted the spanish camp at night, hoping to use the surprise and the lack of visibility to compensate for their lesser equipment, but they bumped onto Becerillo, who picked them one by one at his pleasure; the caribbeans couldn't see him, and even if they could hear him, they probably hesitated before running towards the screams of a fellow being butchered by a beast in pitch darkness...

    The best dogs had a pay as high as a crossbowman (50% more than a swordman).
    Last edited by Clistenes; 2017-12-07 at 04:49 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •