Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Obscure or unique History Questions you would like answered by the Brains of Urban

This is what always happens in The Three Kingdoms anyway.
Yes, it was something I read in a paper by Rafe De Crespigny who specialises in the period, but can't remember which one. Just having a look to see if it shows up as he did put a lot of stuff online, but the old website at ANU seems to have been revamped and lost a lot of it.
 
The other example that seems marked is how Viking raids seemed to go, a boatload of well armed and armoured professional killers can turn up and rob and slaughter whole communities who outnumber them, often greatly, thanks to surprise and purpose.
 
The other example that seems marked is how Viking raids seemed to go, a boatload of well armed and armoured professional killers can turn up and rob and slaughter whole communities who outnumber them, often greatly, thanks to surprise and purpose.
Not to mention cohesion if not discipline
 
Found it, it was from his Morrison lecture on Cao Cao:
The matter of controlling and maintaining an army in being was central to the success of Cao Cao and the failure of Yuan Shao. For the armies of this time were ramshackle affairs. The small regular forces of the Han dynasty, professional soldiers based at the capital and experienced troops on the northern frontier, had been well-disciplined and efficient, but elsewhere in the empire the government of Later Han had been more concerned about the loyalty of its people than with the need for competent soldiers, and it maintained no general system of militia training. In civil war, as the mobilisations of the warlords brought vast numbers to the competing banners, there were neither time nor resources for proper training. Many men with experience in the old imperial army gained advancement as commanders of the new recruits, but their units were overwhelmed by the hordes of newcomers, and the traditions, skills and discipline were lost. As for equipment, uniforms, supply and general co-ordination, the texts indicate either that they were completely lacking or, when they were present, that this was considered exceptional.

In reality, these armies were simple armed mobs, with landless troops driven variously by loyalty or fear, by personal desperation, and by the hope of plunder. And they were accompanied by a mass of camp-followers _women and children, cooks and prostitutes, peddlers and gamblers, and a few who specialised in care of the sick and wounded. In the ruin of the society of the past, these masses of ragged misery joined the command of any chieftain who might gain them a measure of security.

So the structure and fighting techniques of these armies were based upon small groups of men following individual leaders. The heart of each unit was the commander himself, supported by his Companions, skilled soldiers who owed him personal allegiance and served as a body-guard, and the most important tactic was expressed in the phrase "to break the enemy line". In aggressive action, the commander and his Companions acted as spearhead for a drive at the enemy array, and if they were successful they could hope to be followed by the mass of their followers, spreading out to attack the broken enemy from the flank and the rear.

Such tactics have been used at other times and places, and the reliance upon mass, concentrated at one point, is a natural technique for an ill-disciplined force, but it is a frightening operation for the leaders of a primitive army, with no certainty of support. Such attack requires great courage from the leader and his immediate followers, and a high level of personal authority to attract his men to follow in the charge. So if we read in the stories how one man held a bridge, or another advanced alone against an army, some part of the tale may be true:

Here, for example, is an attack from the Yangzi against the mouth of the Hanin 208:[12]

Two great ships were moored to narrow the entrance, with heavy ropes stretched between them and stones attached as anchors. Above this line of defence were a thousand men with crossbows for covering fire. The arrows poured down like rain, and the army could not get forward.
Dong Xi and Ling Tong were together in the van. Each took charge of a forlorn hope of volunteers, all in double armour. They boarded a great barge, charged between the covered boats, and Dong Xi himself cut the ropes with his sword. The enemy craft were swept down-stream, and the main body of the army was able to attack.
 
My question is about evidence of large scale conflict pre neolithic, where is it if, as we are told, humans are so natchrully warlike and given to violence over co operation.
There isn't much evidence for very large scale battles. However there is evidence of mass murder, butchery, cannibalism in early human societies.
 
Looks as though hand cannon were used by the Yuan dynasty in 1287 battling the Mongol hordes.Must have been something of a game changer one would think.Brits got muskets by 1718 probably thought thank f*** for that.
 
Looks as though hand cannon were used by the Yuan dynasty in 1287 battling the Mongol hordes.Must have been something of a game changer one would think.Brits got muskets by 1718 probably thought thank f*** for that.
The Yuan Dynasty were the Mongol hordes!
 
Okay I don't doubt you are right.i relied on Google apparently the Jurchen Yuan used handguns in 1287 against a rebellion of the Mongol prince Nayan.How was I to know that they were all Yuan dynasty🤷
 
That's broadly true, however, it doesn't help much if you're going from Lincoln to, say, York.
As the Romans marched about discovering their new conquests they would note the route they took between places, so they didn't get lost. Some of those places were worth building a camp - a port (Chichester, Dover), river crossings (York, London), a hilltop (Lincoln). Once the camps were established then they'd build roads between them. So the route came first (sometimes along pre-Roman paths), then the camps and finally the roads. When they decided to build one of their nice straight roads from Lincoln to York or London they already knew the basic route to take.
 
The other example that seems marked is how Viking raids seemed to go, a boatload of well armed and armoured professional killers can turn up and rob and slaughter whole communities who outnumber them, often greatly, thanks to surprise and purpose.
This is the sense you get from Bernard Cornwells Uthred books. The danes that came over were fighters - armed and up for it. The peasants and families and the gernerally less fighty were left back home - so you had the equivalent of the danish "ultras" . When it came to pitched battles between the saxons and vikings - things were much more even.
I guess you start to get more proffesional amys of actual soldiers - rather than a leader and his hard nut armed bodygaurd plus whatever bunch of peasnats with sharpened sticks and pitchforks you could muster - as the norm once you get more organised states in the medieival ages - and the fact that things like longbows, crossbows and pike formations take a fair bit of training - although feudal leveis would still have made up a high proportion of the troops.
Thinking about this - the success of the english in the 100 years war, where they often defeated far larger french forces, - may well have been in part to the fact that most of the english troops were trained soldiers and the french would have a much higher proportion of peasants.
 
Last edited:
This is the sense you get from Bernard Cornwells Uthred books. The danes that came over were fighters - armed and up for it. The peasants and families and the less gernarally less fighty were left back home - so you had the equivaltne of the danish "ultras" . When it came to pitched battles between the saxons and vikings - things were much more even.
I guess you start to get more proffesional amys of actual soldiers - rather than a leader and his hard nut armed bodygaurd plus whatever bunch of peasnats with sharpened sticks and pitchforks you could muster - as the norm once you get more organised states in the medieival ages - and the fact that things like longbows, crossbows and pike formations take a fair bit of training - although feudal leveis would still have made up a high proportion of the troops.
Thinking about this - the success of the english in the 100 years war where they often defeated far larger french forces - may well have been in part to the fact that most of the english troops were trained soldiers and the french would have a much higher proportion of peasants.
not to mention that the french despised the english longbow and were only too happy to ride down their own crossbowmen
 
As the Romans marched about discovering their new conquests they would note the route they took between places, so they didn't get lost. Some of those places were worth building a camp - a port (Chichester, Dover), river crossings (York, London), a hilltop (Lincoln). Once the camps were established then they'd build roads between them. So the route came first (sometimes along pre-Roman paths), then the camps and finally the roads. When they decided to build one of their nice straight roads from Lincoln to York or London they already knew the basic route to take.
i'd have thought that their exploratores would have fed into this, that they'd have established a route before marching in the first place, before building permanent camps, rather than lumbering along on some random track headed for fuck knows where
 
Back
Top Bottom