I think Sun Tzu has some very decent basic notions but over all I found the work to be too vague. I found much more weight in tactical books from the Romans, especially 6th century onward. Later on in the 800s and 900s for example they were able to do highly maneuverable and effective combined arms tactics where their heavy infantry would form hollow squares covering large tracts of the battle field. The Kataphractoi/Klibanari which were heavily armored and could ignore most missile fire would crash into the enemy lines but then retreat into the hollow squares as the infantry acted as guards. It's interesting how the Roman Empire's military went from very effective infantry, to fairly ineffective infantry but effective cavalry, to then having effective cavalry and infantry.

As for poison arrows, Ovidius talks about the Dacians who dipped their arrows in adder poison, like the Scythians (who at the time were probably Sarmatians.)

I don't believe it's a rag, rather than melted pitch poured slightly over the tip of the arrow then hardened. Being flammable, even through its flight it would go out and not too much accuracy is sacrificed.

Seems moot now that he's not here but still.

Also, this isn't meant to sound like I'm absolutely disagreeing with him either. WHo knows. maybe historians from the times they were used were simply trying to add dramatic flair to their re-telling of historical events.

With me, I would use flaming arrows in naval combat, as well as most of the flaming projectiles. For me, poison would almost seem more effective in long term. If it wasn't deadly at first, you have to figure, battles went on for hours at a time. Men would be tired out, sickened, more open to potential disease. Then again, flaming arrows may be good in some instances, especially if you managed to catapult jars containing oils and such things into enemy lines.

And yea Verlox, I agree. What a lot of people don't know about the Bible (especially those who do not believe in it) is that it is one of the most historically accurate books out there. I'm not bringing up any religion, but that book has some good military things in it.

As for the Art of War, that was more of a "grand strategy" thing than on the field tactics. Why you did see some on the field things, most of it was the general management of one's territory and military. I've found that if you just look up things on even Wikipedia and other webpages about previous battles, you will find the consequences of most actions.

Also, I'm getting "The Face of Battle" that Duval mentions in this guide. It seems pretty interesting.

Verlox has a point, if you want tactics and stratagies, read the Bible. It has more battles and bloodshed in it than your average Rambo film on steroids.

I love the guide, and I can't stress enough that in order to run a smooth War RP, you have to have a god-like leader, and RPers equally as good. It only takes one poor RPer to come in and say "The OOBERKNIGHTs P0wn3d the enemies. Eating them like they were kids in an all you can eat candy buffet." to ruin the ENTIRE thing.

Another thing I can't stress enough is that every soldier is different. In history, many lower class and even higher class infantry weren't issued armor, they had to supply it themselves. Even in professional ancient armies, the typical infantry was slightly different from the one next to him. The exception, of course, is better trained men, such as personal guards, cavalary, etc.

Now my take on those flaming arrows you so accurately shot down. Flaming arrows are practically useless, you lose accuracy, velocity, and not to mention the only deadly part of the arrow is now covered in a soft padding of cloth that in rare cases may still be burning. Even if that arrow miraculously hits you, you'd basically have to be covered in alcohol to ignite in a hunk of burning flesh. You'd most likely have the opportunity to pull the smoldering arrowhead out of whatever armor you are wearing before you started aflame.
Onto the previously mentioned heated bolts, they aren't as great as you would expect. Bolts with a wooden shaft would simply burn itself to pieces if the tip was heated enough. But let's say the entire bolt is metallic, and you do manage to hit the intended target. Unless if the bolt was launched from a ballista, typical cross-bow heated tipped bolts won't penetrate armor as well. Mainly because the metal is now heated so much it becomes soft, and plate armor will deflect and absorb more of the blow. However, to chain mail and unprotected flesh, the results of taking a hit are simply devastating.

But on the point of the cloth: I don't think that cloth was used, IMO. A black tar-like substance (called pitch) which was flammable was put in a small layer on the arrow, allowing it to remain "pointy" but because it was flammable (it is a substance that is derived from petroleum after all) it allowed it to burn whilst flying through the air.

I don't believe people were stupid enough to tie a three pound piece of cloth to the end of an arrow and expect it to work. Pitch was certainly available and I believe it made flaming arrows a possibility.

You can't tie cloth to an arrow. Doesn't work. Now, I DO wonder if they tied cloth coated in oils and tar to larger ballista and scorpio bolts. That would be pretty nasty. Main thing is, I think they would be very effective if you catapulted jars of tar at the enemy. If that stuff gets into your eyes, you are screwed. Glass breaks, gets inside little armor slivers, that hurts and will aggravate you, especially with a big Orc in front of you swinging his axe, or a Breton with his pike, etc. Then you launch a bunch of flaming missiles, which happen to light up all of your soldiers. Tar is thick, you can't just get it off right then and there.

I also wonder if armies have laid down tar at defensive positions in front of say, a trench. If the enemy army marches on it (if they are that dumb) then you throw a match on that joker and it lights the whole place to oblivion.

But no, you aren't going to tie a cloth to a flaming arrow. That's absurd.

What do you need accuracy in an arrow for if your target is a giant mass of people? Arrows themselves aren't all that accurate either way. And you don't cover the tip but the shaft close to the end in the tar. One arrow may not light anything on fire, but then again you only need one to ignite something to cause havoc. Fire most importantly causes fear, damages visibility, you can't breath, etc. Maybe heavy armored troops won't be much bothered by arrows but they won't like it when smoke is all around them and they can't breath, they can't see and it's getting warm.

Extremly good guide which deserves a bumpig (Bring Up My Post In Diguise or Bump in disguise).

On the subject of marching, I've found some interesting stuff in Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World, 565-1204 by John Haldon.

On march speed:

The speed at which large forces can move varies considerably according to these limitations: anything from 7 or 8 miles per day to 18 or 20. Unaccompanied cavalry can achieve distances of up to 40 or 50 miles per day, provided the horses are regularly rested and well nourished and watered. Similarly, small units can move much faster than large divisions: distances of up to 30 miles per day for infantry have been recorded from different pre-modern historical contexts. But the average marching speeds for infantry are 3 miles per hour on even terrain, 2? on uneven or broken/hilly ground.

On large army marching:

For the number of men, animals and carts involved in a column, and the space they occupy, also plays a fundamental role. The reason a large force moves more slowly than a small force is simple: the men and horses do not all start off at the same moment, but one after the other. Hence the longer the column, the longer it takes for the rearmost files to set off; correspondingly, the rearmost groups will arrive at the next camp later than the foremost groups; and the delay between the arrival of the first and the last men is proportional to the length and breadth of the column. Thus an army of 5,000 infantry, marching at the standard infantry rate of about 3 miles per hour (4.5 km/hr) over good ground, ordered five abriast and with each row occupying a (minimal) 2 metres would stretch over a distance of 2 km. Assuming a one-second delay between each row setting off, there would be a gap of some 17 minutes between foremost and rearmost ranks. This is, in fact, an exceedingly optimistic set of assumptions. In much of the campaigning against the Arabs, the terrain was broken and mountainous, so that marching rates were slower, and because of the narrowness of many of the tracks used, columns longer: a column of 1,000 cavalry in double file would stretch over 2 km, where each rank took up approximately 4 m space; an army of 10,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry would, even with the infantry five abriast and the cavalry two abriast, stretch over 14km, and the rearmost ranks would be some 75 minutes at the very least behind the first. The bigger the army and the narrower its front, therefore, the longer (and more exposed) the column, the more difficult the maintenance of regular marching time and discipline, and the greater the delay between the first and last ranks arriving at a given destination.

On forced marching:

Although the sources disagree over details, an example of a Byzantine forced march is provided by the expedition of Basil II in 995 from Constantinople to relieve Aleppo. The emperor supposedly set out with a force estimated at 40,000; the journey, normally taking some 60 days, was completed in a quarter of the time, but only 17,000 men and their mounts or pack-animals arrived at Aleppo. Horses need regular rest and regular breaks for grazing (at least one day in six, or the equivalent), if they are not to develop sores and damage to their feet and backs, such that they are temporarily (and if not rested and cared for, permanently) useless. The drop-out rate in Basil’s forces was probably due in large part to these factors.

On average marching speed (again):

In most conditions, the average length of a day’s march for infantry or combined forces was probably rarely more than 12–14 miles, which has been an average for most infantry forces throughout recorded history, and this figure would more often than not be reduced where large numbers of troops, particularly including infantry, were involved. The average can be increased when no accompanying baggage train is present: thus Roman legionary troops of the first century AD, carrying most of their immediate requirements in equipment and provisions, were supposed to maintain a rate of 20 Roman miles in five hours (18.4 miles), on metalled roads or good tracks and in good weather. A faster pace, intended to cover 24 Roman miles in five hours, was also practised.

Of course the book is about Byzantine troops, but I don't think numbers would vary too much for most medieval-esque armies.

Also, I can't find the exact passage and I don't remember if Duval mentioned this in the guide - since it is a pretty big deal - but, since I can't find it while skimming over the article, one shouldn't forget the rule 'march divided, fight concentrated'. The baggage train for an enormous army of tenths of thousands would be appropriately huge, unavoidably involving wagons (which are going to slow you down massively as well as restrict your routes of march, since you'd need pretty good roads for the wagons to go through) and feeding such an army would be a pain in the ass, even in your own territory where you can have supply dumps prepared along the way; it's more practical to have three armies of seven thousand march along different routes than an army of twenty-one thousand going by one road. The economical impact of an army passing through a territory is severe and even on their home turf soldiers can act a bit iffy if they're not disciplined enough; it gets worse if the region isn't prepared to acomodate a larger number of soldiers. Mercenaries are even worse because they have no ties with the populace there and thus no qualms about exploiting them for their needs. Now while most war RPs don't extend over a long enough period of time for economic damage to be relevant to the players themselves, it doesn't change the fact we're RPing people who live in the world of Tamriel and who would, if they were real, have to deal with the consequences of a large army stomping through.

Anyone else watching Deadliest Warrior on SpikeTV see that they just used Flaming arrows? They used an arrow with a lard covered, seed oil soaked, cloth wrapped about 1 inch below the head. They showed that it was good for catching stuff on fire (especially if you pre-soak the area in flammable liquid), but it has terrible penetrating power and has trouble penetrating chain mail. The kicker is that if it does penetrate, it only goes in 1 inch and because it is on fire, it cauterizes (might be miss-spelled) the wound.

Awesome guide. I bookmarked it, and I think it should be pined, or stickeyed or whatever its called.

It should be stikeyed, given a golden medall and then get the status of Elder Scroll throughout the forums!!! :celebration: :celebration: :celebration:

It's in here: http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/747418-so-you-think-you-can-rp/, which is pinned on the board.

I can attest to the truth in what PFA had posted. Marching with weight on your back at a forced pace is an extremely fatiguing event, it breaks down your whole body and you expend hundreds of calories doing it, if a soldier is not given suitable time to maintain proper foot care and hygiene then he'll most likely get an injury and wont be able to do anything. Forced marches where off skin and give blisters, break toe nails, that kind of stuff. I find it amazing that the Romans marched the way they did, even on good roads.

So if you march your army at a breakneck pace to go and kill some dark elves, you may find that the Army who didn't have to march anywhere had enough energy and toughness to tear up your own army.

That''s the thing. Sun Tzu even has this right.

If you march all day, then get to the battle without resting, you're troops are going to be tired as hell, especially if they are on the offense. Attack in the morning, when your troops moral is high and energy is high. Or have your soldiers sleep during the day, and attack the enemy late in the evening when they aren't well rested.

Okay... I feel I need to put a bit of insight based on common sense and logic rather than historical precedent (I don't have the sources on me)... but it seems pretty well confirmed now that flaming arrows are indeed used. Those who argue seem to be completely missing the point of them (NPI).

No, not all archers will be using only flaming arrows all the time, because they are ineffective at killing their target (Again, lack of penetration, accuracy, and range). But their point isn't really to skewer the enemy (Though it's an added bonus if a few, but not too many, do). The purpose of a flaming arrow isn't to stab people from a distance like normal arrows: it's to transport the fire from point A to point B.

The biggest point anti-flaming arrow people seem to be missing is the purpose of mixed weapons and varied arrow types in the first place. There's a continuum for the type of arrow used, with range, accuracy, and penetrating power on one end, and the odds of setting great areas on fire on the other. Standard arrows are virtually incapable of setting anything on fire, but have good range and penetration. Burning rag arrows are also used at not-as-far range, to set the areas on fire, with the arrow tip doing little more than serving as an anchor to whatever it hits without bouncing off of.


Cauterizing the wound isn't doing the shot guys a favor, and isn't true anyway. What a flaming arrow does do on the rare chance it penetrates and is still burning is it BURNS, and radiates pain and system/flesh damage beyond the immediate impact point. It also disfigures, making it very terrifying.

I'm rambling... Short point is... Normal arrows are for killing people. Arrows on Fire are used for area denial and battlefield control. Both have a place on the battlefield, so both would likely be used whenever practical. In Tamriel, Khajiit will find a way to use them whenever possible.

Magic arrows should also be taken into consideration: They have all the advantages of a Hyperflamable arrow, while also having all the advantages of a standard arrow but one: Cost. So, they'd be rare, but at least a few deployed... I think they're comparable to modern grenade launchers.

EDIT: Also, I think we need something to discuss the effect Tamriel has on warfare... After all, those Imperial Battlemages aren't just for show, and I'm pretty sure in the case of a certain race of felines have their biology making them Min-Maxed soldiers shakes up the dynamic somewhere as well.

Not gonna lie, I don't RP Army's, ever. I have never been very into military sim RP's. But this is quite possibly one of the best RP guides I have ever seen. Very nice job! This should be stickied, without a doubt. Keep up the good work!

(I might PM you sometime about history, I love a good history chat.)

I think I need to make something clear: Any tactics discussed in this guide are likely moot... Massive Infantry Formations = Fireball Fodder (There are a LOT of Mages and Spellswords on the battlefield)

Someone earlier (2 years ago) suggested that the actual people in the field wouldn't carry potions "Because they might be killed when trying to drink it", and delegate that task to healers... I think that makes as much sense as giving modern Medics (or Squad Sergeants) all the spare ammo magazines because "Your Soldiers might get shot when they fumble around trying to reload"... Instead, infantry would carry a number of potions on themselves, and be trained to consume them quickly and safely in the heat of battle.

Also... Horse-riding Cavalry are little more than PBI themselves in Fantasy Warfare... Orcs are better armed and armored, and strong enough to render even many heavy armors worthless. Anyone with the ability to sling a spell (In High Rock and Summerset Isle, there are lots of these guys) can likewise knock them off their high horses, essentially making them merely elite warriors. Khajiit have it different in this regard, because of the natures of Senche (Superior to horses in all ways), and Senche-Raht, which have battlefield presence superior to trained Elephants. Warbeasts would also be used, making Horse-riding cavalry seem significantly less effective.

Yes, costs of employing the fantastic forces available like Mages, Warbeasts, or outfitting archers with magical arrows or giving infantry potions would be expensive, but those that skimp on those costs would pay very, very dearly.

Many of the tactics with historical precedent here seem to make as much sense in Tamrielic Warfare as Cavalry and Infantry Charges make in Trench Warfare with Machineguns and Landmines... while others remind me of a Sniper having to accomodate for a near-sonic projectile speed, gravitational drop, and wind with a long-range rifle that shoots laserbeams instead of bullets.

Magic is pretty rare man. You're acting like everyone has magic. That isn't true.

The Redguards view eastern magic practice (at least the crowns) as blasphemy.

Indeed, magic would be a terrifying force on the battlefield, but most nations aren't good enough spell casters to have a significant number of sorcerers. Battlemages aren't as numerous as you make them sound, and even then they are limited by magical training and ability. Bretons and Altmer obviously have a much larger pool of mages to recruit from, but they have their weaknesses as well. Altmer have smaller populations due to a severely reduced birth rate and can only field goblin or mercenary infantry. And even a whole host of mages run out of magicka eventually, not to mention I'm sure there is a range where spells start to lose their punch.

Just because the devs never needed to develop Tes warfare doesn't mean there are no limitations. I think in that regard we can devise our own canon lore, if only for use in our RPs, to restrict things like magic in warfare and potions. If not, the crafty roleplayer could exploit a whole host of possibilities, making the whole RP a lot less fun.

On the topic of orcs, they too have a limited population due to their shorter life spans, and since almost every nation uses them as mercenaries, I'm sure their population is spread out enough that no one army could field enough orcs that they couldn't be overpowered by numbers, missile weapons, or magic.

I think giant spells created by a team of mages would be used more like siege weapons than missiles. If a dozen mages got together and made a huge fireball, it'd be the equivelant of a trebuchet without the hassle of immobility.

Senche might be effective mounts, but in the end they would need to close in to attack anyone (unless they use missiles), which would still make them vulnerable to spears and pikes. A whole unit would just be like a more mobile heavy cavalry, without the endurance of horses. I admit they have definite advantages, but nothing that can't be countered.

And just like with medieval knights, those with enough money to outfit some of these things would have to be wealthy landowners, restricting their number significantly compared to lighter infantry. It's a matter of quantity over quality, and is rather subjective.

I agree with what you are saying, that certain fantasy aspects change the idea of warfare, but it can be controlled to the point that it can be used just like any historical fact. Sorry if I rambled from point to point a bit, I think we need to start making a list of agreed upon aspects of fantasy warfare, to be used from now on to create much cooler battles

It's mood only in how you set your environment really. In my timeline for example not every other person is a mage. To be a mage requires you to at least be able to read. 99 percent of people in "those times" could not read. Out of that remaining 1 percent only a few actually look into studying magic. And out of that minority an even less number of people are actually the super powerful battle field changing mage types most people imagine. It really depends I guess on how you view it all in your own head.

Some people have this image:

http://www.the-nextlevel.com/previews/pc/world-warcraft/world-of-warcraft-a.jpg

The stereo typical giant weapons you couldn't actually lift, heavier than the titanic armor and all together impractical set up.

My image falls more in line to this:

http://media.photobucket.com/image/polish%20knights/junbish/steppe%2520empires/SeventeenthCenturyPolishPancerni.jpg


-----------------

Also i'd like to add something that may not have been discussed. Cavalry is very vulnerable against infantry when standing still in a melee fight. If your cavalry gets bogged down, they'll probably be beaten.

Yea. I agree IB. Besides, a shield can protect against magic. A shield does a perfectly well done job at blocking a fireball. Your hand might get a little hot, but its the same as a shock force from any weapon, or most weapons.

Still, a shock force from a battle-axe block (if it doesn't kill your shield) will usually break some bones. That's another point. Seismic force.

Yeah, but if you have a metal shield then you'll still be electrocuted. Point is, there are so many versatile uses for magic, most of which not even explored in game due to engine restrictions, that if a capable mage can't find a way around your shield, I wouldn't call him a capable mage. I wouldn't go so far as to say 99%, maybe 5-10% of the population can use magic, but out of those guys only about 30% can do more than heal simple scraqes or start a campfire.

So out of a 10,000 man army, maybe a hundred are legitimate spell casters, and less than half of that are of any significant danger to the enemy. So yeah, they can pretty much kill any non-mage out there (I don't believe in Oblivion's "You get hit by twenty lightning bolts but you're still not dead" theory), but they are only good for maybe two dozen spells before they're done for a while (or drink a potion, but those are in limited supply). And besides, the other army would have mages to counter your army's mages, like two opposing forces of heavy cavalry going head to head. Whoever has more or better equipped cavalry wins; the same goes for magic.

Despite it's pitfalls as a book, I liked Eragon's description of mages in a war scenario. Their mages will be putting up wards against your spells, and you need to defeat those before you can magic your way against the opponent.


Indeed, heavy cavalry is good for one shock run against normal infantry or other cavalry. If the enemy has pikes set up, which they should, cavalry should be neutralized against most infantry anyway, depending on the battle formation. If you can break the spear walls to get to, say, a cut off group of archers, then the cavalry can start slaughtering people. And light cavalry isn't that effective against armored infantry or cavalry since it doesn't have the weapons or armor to stay in prolonged conflict. It was mostly used as support for heavy cavalry or to harrass enemy flanks.


This is fun

But all it takes is one or two "cowards" (lets call 'em) to begin [censored]ting their pants in the face of a massive cavalry charge, break the wall of pikes, open a hole and (like stated above in GD's OP) the entire line may very well just collapse because the horses will pour into that hole. Not every fighter is a steel-hearted killing-machine emotionless bastard and if you have even a thousand men in your formation, there is gonna be a few dozen who aren't quite as ballsy as the rest of them.

Personally, I think it takes a mature, skilled RP'er to include things like that, where their own men open up their formation even though it means the possible downfall of their army.

No one is going to get shocked with a "metal shield." There's no such thing as solid metal shields that you see in Oblivion. At best you get a small metal buckler like this:

http://www.realmcollections.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/5e06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/S/h/Shields_Steel_Buckler_M800248_1759.jpg

Most shields were made of wood, glue, and hide and they worked perfectly well. The best use of magic on the battle field in my opinion isn't to have highly specialized mages which are costly. But rather low skilled general use troops who can cast a little bit of fire here and there that would work best in unison. The best effect of magic would be for shock and awe rather than literal damage to the armies.