Military Tactics Without Gunpowder

asnys · May 11, 2006

My first post here, so please forgive me if I am posting this in the wrong forum. The story this is intended for is not actually alternate history, but the nature of the question suggested to me that this might be the best place to ask.

The setting the story takes place in has not developed gunpowder, the printing press, electricity, or the other accoutrements of the modern world, remaining at a technology level roughly equivalent to the early Eurpoean Rennaissance, although they have composite bows and (as mentioned) lack gunpowder weapons. (And before anyone asks, magic is not involved in any way whatsoever). Local government structures tends towards the feudalistic, although with a wide variation in the degree of centralization of individual societies; however, they do have the social and economic structures to support sizable armies.

Given this, what would a battle between two armies look like? For example, without cannons, would castles remain as viable defensive structures, or would the trebuchet be enough to put an end to their utility? Would there be a single type of unit dominant on the battlefield, as heavy cavalry dominated the Early Middle Ages?

Also, just how difficult is logistics in a world without radios, railroads, telegraphs, and refrigeration? I have read that Middle Ages armies were in the habit of stripping the land clean of everything edible as they passed, but I have seen references attributing this to lack of organization and knowledge of logistics rather than a lack of technology. Without modern technology, would the passing of an army still be cause for the peasants to bury their stocks of grain?

Thanks for your help!

CalBear · May 11, 2006

Welcome to the board!

Since progress has, for whatever reason, been frozen, the tactics would also remain frozen overall. The tactics that existed at the time were in place because they worked.

That being said, the Western world will be vunerable to the mongols for a far greater period of time.

I might have posted this in the ASB Forum, mostly because it requires basic investions never be created without any reasonable POD making it possible.

jolo · May 11, 2006

The logistics problem appears to be caused by feudalism, too - why bother with buying all the food on the market if one can get them for free from the peasants? To avoid that problem, some more individualism, democratic controls, or economic competition would be necessary.

Even without much technological progress, there should be some tactical progress over the centuries - imo, heavy cavalry was never too much use, it was just believed that more armor made better warriors. The successes of lighter units would probably have happened anyways. A light cavalry armed with composite short bows and samurai-style swords might be the "best" possible unit of the time, especially with lots of training and some special tools like ropes to climb walls. Maybe the black smiths will improve their art more in the conventional technologies without gun powder - I could imagine a melting of a spear and a crossbow to a spear with multiple tips/darts, recharged by hitting the ground or an object, for example.

Without gun powder, castles seated on hills would probably stay very popular - trebuchets and similar weapons don't have too much reach afaik, especially uphill, and they can easily be destroyed by an active defense - maybe even from the castle with some large crossbows or the likes. A single object thrown against a castle also usually won't cause more than a big hole in the wall being hit - unlike an explosive shell, which might make whole walls and towers fall.

Chengar Qordath · May 11, 2006

The technology for more sophisticated logistics certainly exists, it just remained unused because long supply lines were much more trouble than simply living off the land. If a more "hearts and minds" attitude begins to appear supply lines and depots will start being used, look at Sweden in the Thirty Years War (until the railroad and steamship there were no technologies that seriously effected logistical capacity, though several different doctrines).

The Spanish tercio seems the logical choice for the most popular military tactics. Heavy cavalry ultimately can not stand up to well-disciplined heavy infantry, especially not pikemen, while the crossbowmen of the tercio can engage enemy foot or horse archers. Assuming no Crecy-level idiocy the crossbow will generally beat out the longbow as a military weapon, especially for siege warfare. Mongols attacking a tercio might as well just commit suicide en masse; it would quicker and less painful.

Heavy cavalry will still be around, as Jeanne d'Arc showed it can devastate unorganised infantry, making it useful for breaking weakened formations, flanking maneuvers, and pursuit. After the Hundred Years War clearly demonstrated what happens to heavy cavalry launching a charge againt combination of pikes and bowmen it will no longer be the dominant force on the battlefield, but considering that shock cavalry survived until WWI it would certainly still be around and important if there was no gunpowder.

jolo said:
A light cavalry armed with composite short bows and samurai-style swords might be the "best" possible unit of the time

No, definately not. A shortbow would be badly outranged, outpowered, and less accurate that a good crossbow, the slight advantage in firing rate will not do much against that many disadvantages unless the infantry commander makes a big mistake. Charging pikes would be suicidal, and a samurai sword would be fairly useless against the plate armour favoured by heavy cavalry. Light cavalry will keep the same role it has had throughout history; scouting, harrassment, skirmishing, and pursuit.

The best army is not going to be one that has a single "super-unit" but one that has a well-executed combined arms approach to combat. The greatest difficulty, as always, will be maintaining reliable communications that allow the different branches of the military to work well together. With no radio I suppose couriers, flag signals, and trumpets will remain the order of the day, though presumably doctrine will improve to try and make this as efficient as possible.

robertp6165 · May 11, 2006

Chengar Qordath said:
Mongols attacking a tercio might as well just commit suicide en masse; it would quicker and less painful...A shortbow would be badly outranged, outpowered, and less accurate that a good crossbow, the slight advantage in firing rate will not do much against that many disadvantages unless the infantry commander makes a big mistake.

I would point out that tests have been done on Asiatic composite bows such as those used by the Mongols and it has been found they have an effective range of over 400 yards. I don't think a crossbow ranges that far. The Mongols would probably tear a tercio apart by simply riding around it and showing it with arrows. Sure, most of the arrows will be ineffective, but enough will get through to start whittling away the tercio until it is weak enough for a cavalry charge to get through. Think Crassus at Carrhae, just with more arrows.

MarkA · May 12, 2006

Late Roman, or at least Byzantine, military tactics remain.

If anyone manages to reimpose the iron dicipline of the legions before the Germanization rot sets in then infantry would again become a very potent weapon supported by both light and heavy cavalry.

Roman military organization usually adapted itself to the pressures of the times. Once it failed to do so it failed and the Empire ended. All through Roman history the legacy of defeat was a new tactical and even strategic evaluation and adoption of new methods.

Cockroach · May 12, 2006

Logistics?
Never seemed to be a serious problem for Alexander or the Romans...
However IF you are intending to use a large Eastern Army (I mean the Perisian style: Cavalry plus an utter heap of tribal levies) remember that they do tend to to consume an awful lot more and more much slower.

Tactics?
Phalanx? Legion? Both are good but do not forget supporting aspects -light cavalry, skirmishers, archers. Add some decent Heavy Cavalry to get round the flanks and act as the 'hammer' while the Phalanx/Legion acts as the 'Anvil'.

Edit to add:

I would point out that tests have been done on Asiatic composite bows such as those used by the Mongols and it has been found they have an effective range of over 400 yards. I don't think a crossbow ranges that far. The Mongols would probably tear a tercio apart by simply riding around it and showing it with arrows. Sure, most of the arrows will be ineffective, but enough will get through to start whittling away the tercio until it is weak enough for a cavalry charge to get through. Think Crassus at Carrhae, just with more arrows.

1. Yes the Asian short bow did have a decent range and penertrating power. However you also need to consider what exactly you mean by a Cross Bow -after all in the five or six hundred years of it's use in Europe there were countless variations... also given the ~2000 year history of it in China and that number becomes even larger.
2. The Terico/Phalanx should't be unsupported in the kind of terrain that favours the damn Steppes Horse Nomads (be they Scythian, Hun, Mongols or some other stinking tribe of unwashed scum). Now consider that same scenario with a force of Kinghts/Heteroi (deleate which ever is more correct for the time period) on the flanks of the Terico/Phalanx...
3. Carrhae? An idiot leads his Legions across an open plain with little water... His force was already weakened and starting to become disorganised when the Parthian Cataphracts and Horse Archers struck.

Edit to add (again):

Heavy cavalry will still be around, as Jeanne d'Arc showed it can devastate unorganised infantry, making it useful for breaking weakened formations, flanking maneuvers, and pursuit. After the Hundred Years War clearly demonstrated what happens to heavy cavalry launching a charge againt combination of pikes and bowmen it will no longer be the dominant force on the battlefield, but considering that shock cavalry survived until WWI it would certainly still be around and important if there was no gunpowder.

Yes Heavy Cavalry shouldn't be over estimated... it was exceptionally rare for them to break heavy infantry.

MarkA · May 12, 2006

Cockroach said:
Logistics?
Never seemed to be a serious problem for Alexander or the Romans...
However IF you are intending to use a large Eastern Army (I mean the Perisian style: Cavalry plus an utter heap of tribal levies) remember that they do tend to to consume an awful lot more and more much slower.

Tactics?
Phalanx? Legion? Both are good but do not forget supporting aspects -light cavalry, skirmishers, archers. Add some decent Heavy Cavalry to get round the flanks and act as the 'hammer' while the Phalanx/Legion acts as the 'Anvil'.

Edit to add:

1. Yes the Asian short bow did have a decent range and penertrating power. However you also need to consider what exactly you mean by a Cross Bow -after all in the five or six hundred years of it's use in Europe there were countless variations... also given the ~2000 year history of it in China and that number becomes even larger.
2. The Terico/Phalanx should't be unsupported in the kind of terrain that favours the damn Steppes Horse Nomads (be they Scythian, Hun, Mongols or some other stinking tribe of unwashed scum). Now consider that same scenario with a force of Kinghts/Heteroi (deleate which ever is more correct for the time period) on the flanks of the Terico/Phalanx...
3. Carrhae? An idiot leads his Legions across an open plain with little water... His force was already weakened and starting to become disorganised when the Parthian Cataphracts and Horse Archers struck.

Edit to add (again):

Yes Heavy Cavalry shouldn't be over estimated... it was exceptionally rare for them to break heavy infantry.

Excellent points! All effective armies need combined arms. Even the classical legion had auxillary cavalry. Caesar would have been defeated many times but for his Gallic and German cavalry.

Any competent commander would ensure his mix of forces would suit the terrain and the campagin.

jolo · May 12, 2006

Chengar Qordath said:
A shortbow would be badly outranged, outpowered, and less accurate that a good crossbow, the slight advantage in firing rate will not do much against that many disadvantages unless the infantry commander makes a big mistake.

Try to reload a good crossbow while riding on a horse. Aiming also isn't the main problem if you shoot at a mass of soldiers or from a medium distance. I only see an advantage for the crossbow in shooting through windows and other small openings of castles or the likes. In a siege situation, that wouldn't be too difficult for the light cavalry.

Chengar Qordath said:
Charging pikes would be suicidal, and a samurai sword would be fairly useless against the plate armour favoured by heavy cavalry. Light cavalry will keep the same role it has had throughout history; scouting, harrassment, skirmishing, and pursuit.

With a samurai sword, one can easily poke through weak parts of the armor. Some damascene swords (not too different) were also able to poke right through the armor. One of the reasons they survived much longer than steel plates. The curved blade of both also has a few advantages, like the tip adding inertia to the blade of which only a small part hits the enemy, among others. Slashing through plate armor might not be possible - but it's not necessary, either. A light soldier would slowly walk away from a heavy armored soldier (slight exaggeration) and shoot into the sights or other weak parts.

Chengar Qordath said:
The best army is not going to be one that has a single "super-unit" but one that has a well-executed combined arms approach to combat. The greatest difficulty, as always, will be maintaining reliable communications that allow the different branches of the military to work well together. With no radio I suppose couriers, flag signals, and trumpets will remain the order of the day, though presumably doctrine will improve to try and make this as efficient as possible.

Very well possible. Though I suppose even without gun powder there'd always be a new unit or a new tactical use of an old unit that makes this unit supreme for some time. I'm also not sure if a "neverending" medieval age would after a few centuries or millenia end up with a combined arms approach, or one dominating kind of unit for each situation (sea/land, mountain/hill/flat land, hot/warm/cold climate, dry/wet weather...).

jolo · May 12, 2006

Cockroach said:
Logistics?
Never seemed to be a serious problem for Alexander or the Romans...
However IF you are intending to use a large Eastern Army (I mean the Perisian style: Cavalry plus an utter heap of tribal levies) remember that they do tend to to consume an awful lot more and more much slower.

Maybe history omitted all those little details over time. Additionally, armies tended to get bigger with population density, making it more and more difficult to "live from the land" without affecting lots of people.

Flocculencio · May 12, 2006

jolo said:
Try to reload a good crossbow while riding on a horse. Aiming also isn't the main problem if you shoot at a mass of soldiers or from a medium distance. I only see an advantage for the crossbow in shooting through windows and other small openings of castles or the likes. In a siege situation, that wouldn't be too difficult for the light cavalry.

Trouble with cavalry shortbows is that they take a hell of a lot more training to use properly. Sure, nomadic peoples spend their lives using these skills but people from more settled kingdoms aren't necessarily going to have a pool of skilled bowmen to draw from. The English managed to raise their longbow levies by making longbow training compulsory. A crossbow, on the other hand, has the same advantage as a musket- any idiot can use one.

What you need are pistol horsebows- small, extremely high tension steel crossbows. Each rider could carry about four, or maybe more if they're small enough. If they're designed well enough, the rider will be able to reload by putting his weight on the crossbow to cock it.

Everyone seems to be assuming that nothing will change- even without gunpowder you're probably going to see changes in materials and improvements and innovations on mediaeval technology.

Max Sinister · May 12, 2006

MarkA said:
Caesar would have been defeated many times but for his Gallic and German cavalry.

He had Gauls and Germanics fighting in his legions? Really? Or do you mean allies?

Redbeard · May 12, 2006

A well trained army, capable of co-operation between the different arms, but only armed with (cross)bows, pikes and cold steel would IMO anyday be superior to a less well trained army with matchlock muskets. Even flintlocks will not pay for a great difference in training.

By training I do not mean the fighting skills of the individual soldier, they are close to insignificant. The men, NCOs and junior officers should first of all be able to exceute orders quickly and accurately. The main point is about doctrine and flexibility of the field and general officers. Can they co-operate or can they not!

In this context things might not be so different without firearms for some centuries.

Light cavalry will still be the indispensable work-horse for the routines of scouting, foraging and skirmishing. But the commander without heavy cavalry will have a serious disadvantage on the battlefield. First his light cavalry will usually be dead meat when conFRONTED with heavies. In a situation where two armies meet equally capable of co-operating cavalry and infantry, the one with the light cavalry only would tend to end up with only infantry. Next the heavy cavalry is the perfect weapon to transform a tactical victory (i.e. the enemy withdrawing) into a decisive victory (i.e. destroying the enemy army).

The absense of field artillery will make it more difficult to plan a point at which to pound the enemy into wavering and deploying the coup-de-grace, but this also brings me to think, that the firearm/no-firearm battlefield, doctrines etc. will remain fairly the same until the well organised field artillery emerged in OTL (introduced from mid 18th century with Liechtenstein's Austrian system to Napoleons arty based doctrines). Battles might tend to have more very bloody melees (i.e. favouring the heavies - on foot or horse).

The (cross)bow armed cavalry will have roles somewhere inbetween the caracole of the 30-years war and the Indians circling the settler wagons. They will anytime be wiped away by (battle)cavalry supporting the infantry and anyway the (cross)bowmen inside/inbetween the heavy infantry formations will have better firing positions and heavier weapons. Without firearms I guess we will see armour retained on the heavy infantryman and probably shields too. Perhaps somekind of large wheeled shield to be delpoyed in front of the infantry formation. That would require (cross)bow cavalry to try to get inbetween or behind the infantry formations, but here they would alo be extremely vulnerable to the supporting (battle)cavalry of the infantry.

Without gunpowder siege artillery, fortifications and castles will remain fairly tall and with more square towers. Much warfare will still be hinged on fortifications - like in OTL until 19th century - but just without Vauban and his fortification and siege techniques.

In OTL armies were almost 100% dependent on living off the land until the emergence of dense railway networks. Before that it simply wasn't possible to transport enough horse fodder over land to feed an army from a depot. If the railway somehow comes to life before the firearm, we might see million man crossbow armies deployed quickly by rail, but moving as slowly in the field as usual. The absense of defensively deployed field artillery with huge stocks of ammo will make the warfare not quite as static as OTL WWI though.

Wonder if someone combines a crossbow with a pointy thing and get similar effects like from bajonets?

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

Jason · May 12, 2006

An interesting idea.

You asked about trebuchets and castles, I think you'd have found simply an on-going evolution. More advanced and more powerful trebuchets leading to new castle designs, etc but don't forget other anti-castle tatics, such as mining. I expect that they would have continued to develop as well.

Logistics-well as we think of them today they are a modern military invention, but also bear in mind the areas effected could be quite localised. 10 miles aorund a battle zone and everything has been eaten, burnt, etc. beyond that the countryside could be almost unharmed

As to gun powder, has it not been invented anywhere or simply failed to reach Europe?

Wozza · May 12, 2006

Jason said:
Logistics-well as we think of them today they are a modern military invention, but also bear in mind the areas effected could be quite localised. 10 miles aorund a battle zone and everything has been eaten, burnt, etc. beyond that the countryside could be almost unharmed

The concept of logistics was perfectly well understood in the ancient and medieval world. It is only armchair strategists who seem not to understand the need to eat, usually because they have never been without a meal.

Someone mentioned Alexander - whose troops rather infamously dies en masse in a desert due to poor logistics.

The problem with pre-modern, and indeed any sort of logistics is the law of diminishing returns. The more camels you have the more camels you need to carry food for those camels.
I would recommend Haldon's Byzantine Warfare, State and Society for this whole topic and particularly the logistics issue, he does some quite exact calculations to show just how many camels are needed fo an army of 35,000 men. The answer is a lot.

Foraging:
Armies do not just appear at the right spot, fight a battle and magically go home, they have to form up and manouvre. Foraging parties have to split up and cover a wide area.

Battles:

People are obssess with battles, most pre-modern warfare was not about big battles, relatively few were fought, and quite frankly we have only the vaguest idea of what happened at those that were.
Most warfare would have been seiges, patrols, foraging, skirmishes.
Consider the Hundred Years War when thinking of spectacular but non-decisive battles.
The book that comes to mind as bringing this out well is John France, Warfare in the Latin East

For an accessible, interesting and non-western view of the reality of being a warrior take a look at the highly entertaining memoirs of Usamah Ibn Munqidh, who fought against the Crusaders.

Doctrine and Tactics:

There is a book called Three Byzantine Military Treatises, which will be available online or in a specialist history library.
It is probably one of the few "scientific" contemporary accounts of pre-modern warfare. There is the minor problem of whether it is true.

Yes: everyone wants a perfectly balanced combined arms force. It is very hard to get one, and when such armies do appear they usually receive a beating from historians - polyglot, mish-mash, bunch of mercenaries, are the usual epithets applied.

The problem is getting such an army: armies are a product of social systems and geography. Only a few states could devise armies from scratch on a fit for purpose basis: the Roman Empire would be the obvious example
(personally I would argue that there is nothing wrong with the Roman Army right until the end, it is simply overwhelmed.)

So if you want all these exciting types of troops there will be problems:
Many will have to be mercenaries (who have an undeserved poor reputation)
They may not speak the same language - This is a real problem, in terms of communication of orders (Redbeard made some excellent points here) but also building espirit de corps.

Welcome to the board - great first post.

Click to expand...

monkey · May 12, 2006

Redbeard said:
Wonder if someone combines a crossbow with a pointy thing and get similar effects like from bajonets?

A pointy thing on the end of your stirup might make reloading tricky. On soft ground your just get a muddy bayonet. But on hard ground it will be awkward and give you a blunt bayonet. And a crossbow would make an even more clumsy spear than a musket.

Jolo said:
A light cavalry armed with composite short bows and samurai-style swords might be the "best" possible unit of the time.

Dont fool for the hype of samurai worshipers, the truth is that the katana is just a single edged iron long sword. Patern welding, folding steel is a forging method used by almost all iron age cultures for evening out the propertys of the mixed result of early smelters, before it became posible to make good quality homogenous steel. And the only reason the martial arts of asia are much more famous of those of europe is that fuedalism suvived until much more recently in asia keeping their martial arts alive.

And if light cavalry are so much better than heavy cavalry then howcome the crusaders managed to dish out some serious whoopass on several occasions. I think that the campaighn of Richard the Lionheart proved that good armour and dicipline can make archery pretty inefective.

Without explosives I think armys will still look pretty similar to those at the end of medieval times, In the late 15th early 16th centurys. The value of combined arms was understood. There dose not seem to be anyway to improve on their arms and amour as it was well articulated and tempered. A crossbow capable of being caried by single man canot be made morepowerful than the steel spaned arbelasts of the period. So I think from the 16th century onward military technology would be in a bit of a stasis. with cobined arms of heavy infantry, Pikeman, Crossbowmen, Bowmen, Heavy Cavalry, and Light Cavalry. Diferent balances of these arms will be tried from time to time and either suceed or fail depending on the circumstaces. And inferior armies will always be made on the cheap, but quantity can sometimes have a quality all of its own.

I dont think pistol style cross bows would be of much use even modern ones have dificulty penetrating heavy clothing.

On the high seas multidecked galleys might have a revival.

without the need to protect from canon I cant see how the castles of the 14th centurie onward can be much improved. Like those built by Edward Longshanks etc with round towers and multiple tiers of defence. But maybe the walls could be made a bit thicker. Neither can much improvment be made on the counterweght trebuchet. The importance of castles and other fortifications, could lead to the nobles and cities retaining alot more power. But centralised power will continue to go through the cycle of rise and fall.

You mentioned that over modern technologys like the printing press are also not developed, does this also rule out things like horse drawn harvesting and sowing machines etc. A primitive hot air baloon and/or hanglider could be a pretty efective observation tool.

Stephen Wordsworth

Max Sinister · May 12, 2006

@Wozza: The problem with mercenaries isn't that they're too ineffective, but that they're unreliable (famous example: Wallenstein). If someone's fighting only for the money, there's a good chance he'll switch sides if the other side pays better. Read Machiavelli. Plus there's the problem what mercenaries will do if they're unemployed.
@monkey: Was there any trace of martial arts in medieval Europe?

Wozza · May 12, 2006

Max Sinister said:
@Wozza: The problem with mercenaries isn't that they're too ineffective, but that they're unreliable (famous example: Wallenstein). If someone's fighting only for the money, there's a good chance he'll switch sides if the other side pays better. Read Machiavelli. Plus there's the problem what mercenaries will do if they're unemployed.

I think Machiavelli is pretty discredited on this topic.

Yes: mercenaries are unreliable by modern standards, but by contemporary standards?

Let's look at a couple ofbattles:
Harold Godwinson fought the Battle of Stamford Bridge against his own brother, the same year William won with Breton mercenaries at Hastings

The Byzantines lost Manzikert in part because of the treachery of the Dukoi family, not their mercenaries, of whom the Varangians were famously loyal.

Feudal hosts also had a tendency to start to look like mercenary armies over the time: Edward I of Englad let his vassals commute their 40 days service into cash, so he could pay for troops (some of the those vassals in this case) to campaign full-time.
The point is that the cash based relationship was ultimately more convenient.

Gladi · May 12, 2006

Max Sinister said:
@monkey: Was there any trace of martial arts in medieval Europe?

Bright day
How about fencing

? And yes it does involve more than waving around large metal stick. And speaking of sticks, what about european stick fighting techniques, most famous of which baton-francais. ANd of course several boxing and wrestling variants. Most of those became sports or self-defense technique only very recently.

Max Sinister · May 12, 2006

I meant: *Weaponless* combat, and except boxing and wrestling.