Looking for ideas: Medieval infantry v/modern

[SaddleRider]

I'm contemplating a story that, down the road in it would include skirmishes with a modern military v a military at roughly a medieval level.

Convincing ways to disable these forces or at least make the odds more even.

I keep seeing the Battle of Endor in my head and it sometimes look a little silly.

But maybe it's more that teddy bears are employing some of these techniques than the techniques themselves.

 

[Lori_the_Hoosier]

I'm contemplating a story that, down the road in it would include skirmishes with a modern military v a military at roughly a medieval level.

Convincing ways to disable these forces or at least make the odds more even.

I keep seeing the Battle of Endor in my head and it sometimes look a little silly.

But maybe it's more that teddy bears are employing some of these techniques than the techniques themselves.

I think what you need to consider is that both medieval and modern soldiery would be equipped with very effective long-range stand-off weapons; a good example is on one side the Welsh longbowmen of Agincourt and soldiers with siege crossbows and on the other side is the modern soldier with rifle/carbine/sniper rifle, and hand-weapons that are still lethally effective closer-range stand-off weapons; obviously there's no valid comparison, you're not comparing apples with apples when you stack a longbow up against an accurized sniper rifle. The medieval soldier had very effective (for the time) close range weapons that nevertheless still had to be within touching range of the enemy, while the modern soldier has an arsenal of very effective short range handguns that still far out-reach the swords and pikes of the medieval soldier and man-at-arms.

Some of the arrows the longbows fired are truly horrifying, yard-long shafts with 6-in long blunt iron mauls for arrowheads designed to punch right through plate armor and do dreadful injury to the wearer; Henry V was hit in the face by one of these at the Battle of Shrewsbury in 1403; a similar arrow is on display at the Battlefield Museum in Shrewsbury, along with the weird and wonderful implements they had to fabricate to slowly pull the arrow out, because it had gone six inches into his skull; those things were absolutely lethal.

I still think the modern soldier would have a significant advantage against a medieval man-at arms, though; modern firearms are 100 times more accurate, far out-range weapons like bows and crossbows which ultimately rely on multiplying human effort to be effective, and can pack a harder and more consistent punch in a smaller area.

 

[oggbashan]

The real advantage a modern soldier would have is the machine gun. Nothing medieval could deliver such firepower at such a long-range, far outdistancing any longbow or crossbow. A crew-served machine gun could kill hundreds or thousands of medieval troops in a massacre - like the battle of Omdurman and machine guns were in their infancy then.

Add artillery and air power? There is no contest.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I still think the modern soldier would have a significant advantage against a medieval man-at arms, though; modern firearms are 100 times more accurate, far out-range weapons like bows and crossbows which ultimately rely on multiplying human effort to be effective, and can pack a harder and more consistent punch in a smaller area.

I suspect that even if you required the modern soldiers to make do with medieval weaponry, their other advantages would be overwhelming. So much of military history comes down to logistics, coordination, and which side had less dysentery, all of which are vastly improved by modern tech.

 

[jaF0]

Convincing ways to disable these forces or at least make the odds more even.

Disable which forces? Modern or Medieval?

More even how? If you do SciFi, there are all sorts of ways. If you don't want to go full on SciFi, but just skirt it, perhaps a storm at sea where the survivors of two wrecked ships, one past, one present are washed up on the same island without arms. They have to face each other hand to hand.

Or maybe they could just get along and survive together. (I'm not big on conflict.)

 

[jaF0]

The real advantage a modern soldier would have is the machine gun. Nothing medieval could deliver such firepower at such a long-range, far outdistancing any longbow or crossbow. A crew-served machine gun could kill hundreds or thousands of medieval troops in a massacre - like the battle of Omdurman and machine guns were in their infancy then.

Add artillery and air power? There is no contest.

Even machine guns aren't equal. Consider those on Zeroes vs. those on F-14s

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a8a0200a3043028ea1bd179252ca48df-c

 

[Rustyoznail]

All of the above, but if the medieval army was aware of its limitations then they could send in their version of a commando stealth team to pick apart the opposing army’s resources.

I would assuming the modern army’s guard would be a bit lax because they know they have overwhelming firepower.

 

[NotWise]

I'm contemplating a story that, down the road in it would include skirmishes with a modern military v a military at roughly a medieval level.

Convincing ways to disable these forces or at least make the odds more even.

I keep seeing the Battle of Endor in my head and it sometimes look a little silly.

But maybe it's more that teddy bears are employing some of these techniques than the techniques themselves.

Reality probably isn't the point here. To give a Medieval force an advantage over a modern force, I'd go with surprise, coordination, overwhelming numbers and berserk behavior. Mistakes by the modern soldiers--like not maintaining fire control and overheating weapons or running out of ammunition--would also help the Medieval force.

You could also throw in a dragon or two, and magic whipped up by Merlin or Mab, or whomsoever you choose, but Merlin and Mab only apply to the Celts.

The nature of the Medieval force will vary a lot depending on when you place them. Lori's examples were for the late middle ages. In the early middle ages (roughly, before 1000 CE) spears and javelins were the most common battlefield weapons and armor (which was expensive and sometimes not used) consisted of a helmet and chain mail. Outside of Iberia, most fighting was by foot soldiers until late in the period, when mounted fighters became more important.

Oh, and good Christians didn't bathe, while Pagans and Moors did. You could probably smell a Christian army for miles downwind.

 

[jaF0]

Perhaps a horse of wood?


Or has that been done?

 

[lovecraft68]

What's the fantasy level? Do the medieval forces get to have a Morgana Lafay with them? A little sorcery to even the odds?

Otherwise its not a contest, a few heavily armed soldiers could kill thousands of metal clad morons on horseback.

 

[Blind_Justice]

What's the fantasy level? Do the medieval forces get to have a Morgana Lafay with them? A little sorcery to even the odds?

Otherwise its not a contest, a few heavily armed soldiers could kill thousands of metal clad morons on horseback.

Even a highly disciplined medieval force would lose its cool when faced with those strange sticks making such infernal noise. I pity the cavalry unit trying to charge a gun emplacement. The horses would panic well before any bullets will hit and the riders will follow suit the moment their comrades' chest plates are perforated.

The anime "Gate", despite all its tropes, gives some rather spot-on examples. Also, there is something else modern militaries have to scare the living Bejeezus out of their opponents. White phosphorous, claymores and tactical nukes, if you really want to go scorched earth on their asses.

 

[jaF0]

Those types of battles played out many times throughout the American west and the African continent. Probably in many other places too.

 

[ishtat]

There is an obscure, very obscure, military history magazine called Slingshot which about 3 years ago published details of a battle between the Lamas of Tibet and the rulers of Bhutan. It took place in about 1630 (from memory) and is the last known battle of any significance in the World which involved no guns or artillery of any kind.

Presumably there is a reason for that.

 

[jaF0]

In fact, the OP could almost look at that. American Indians won several battles using clubs, arrows and spears over the Cavalry's rifles and cannon. How did they equal the odds? They took those rifles from the defeated Troopers, learned how to use them and acquired more.

 

[NotWise]

In fact, the OP could almost look at that. American Indians won several battles using clubs, arrows and spears over the Cavalry's rifles and cannon. How did they equal the odds? They took those rifles from the defeated Troopers, learned how to use them and acquired more.

Look at the Battle of Little Bighorn (aka Custer's last stand, Battle of Greasy Grass), the Battle of the Rosebud, the Zulu Wars Battle of Isandlwana.

Stupid mistakes, ovewhelming numbers, bad intelligence, surprising tactics . . . There are ways. Oh, and don't forget the magic.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

Absent magic, there would be no contest. Cran didn't work for the French in 1914 - machine guns and quick-firing artillery trump bravery every time.

That assumes:

• no magic, no dragons, no spells, etc
• that the modern forces' logistics system remains intact. Ammunition for modern small arms, for instance, is not simple and couldn't be made in an ad hoc fashion.
• there is at least passable generalship on the part of the modern commander. No Custeresque arrogance, no Varus-like stupidity.
• reasonable odds. 10-to-1 would be easy enough, 100-to-1 possible but very difficult, 1,000,000-to-1 impossible.

Medieval armies were not stupid. They adopted whatever technology was available and adapted when necessary. Even the horse-bound nobility learned that the hard way. But small arms with a range of hundreds of meters is unbeatable against even English archers.

 

[NotWise]

Absent magic, there would be no contest. Cran didn't work for the French in 1914 - machine guns and quick-firing artillery trump bravery every time.

That assumes:

• no magic, no dragons, no spells, etc
• that the modern forces' logistics system remains intact. Ammunition for modern small arms, for instance, is not simple and couldn't be made in an ad hoc fashion.
• there is at least passable generalship on the part of the modern commander. No Custeresque arrogance, no Varus-like stupidity.
• reasonable odds. 10-to-1 would be easy enough, 100-to-1 possible but very difficult, 1,000,000-to-1 impossible.

Medieval armies were not stupid. They adopted whatever technology was available and adapted when necessary. Even the horse-bound nobility learned that the hard way. But small arms with a range of hundreds of meters is unbeatable against even English archers.

The history of relatively modern forces being overwhelmed is pretty much the history of Custeresque arrogance and Varus-like stupidity. If you're going to eliminate dragons and magic (I wouldn't), then along with overwhelming numbers, that is how it happens.

 

[MetaBob]

I'm contemplating a story that, down the road in it would include skirmishes with a modern military v a military at roughly a medieval level.

Jerry Pournelle explored this in the SF novel Janissaries (and its two increasingly stupid sequels) in skirmishes, battles, and full-on wars.

Convincing ways to disable these forces or at least make the odds more even.

I keep seeing the Battle of Endor in my head and it sometimes look a little silly.

But maybe it's more that teddy bears are employing some of these techniques than the techniques themselves.

Cleverly orchestrated sabotage, maybe. Magic, certainly. Automatic weapons against any medieval technology is an irremediable mismatch. Can a mage stop automatic weapons from firing? Possibly by preventing gunpowder from functioning? Then it's mounted knights with lances and swords plus archers and footies against lightly armored auxiliaries with bayonets (at best). Changes everything.

I explored this a little in one of my stories.

Also, Frank Herbert's Holtzman shield, from Dune.

 

[PennameWombat]

I'm contemplating a story that, down the road in it would include skirmishes with a modern military v a military at roughly a medieval level.

Convincing ways to disable these forces or at least make the odds more even.

I keep seeing the Battle of Endor in my head and it sometimes look a little silly.

But maybe it's more that teddy bears are employing some of these techniques than the techniques themselves.

Terrain. Tactics. Timing. Logistics. Battles are won by the first three. Wars are won by the last.

So, what is the supply chain for the modern military? Do they have only the arms and ammo ‘on hand’ or do they have a supply line for replenishment? If there is a supply line, your medieval people can steal modern weapons or have people sell/supply them, comparable to how many guerrilla groups today resist well-supplied modern armies.

There was mention of the Battle of Little Big Horn, aka Custer’s Last Stand (and the Battle of Greasy Grass.) One key note, the Native Americans in that battle were as well-armed as the US Army troops, arguably some of their repeating rifles were superior to what the Army had. It wasn’t simply bows and arrows versus rifles. But to timing, Custer was incompetent. He split his command, he lost communications and most importantly he utterly failed in intelligence (scouting, reconnaissance).

And, overall, the Native Americans won some battles and inflicted casualties but they were always going to lose the war. Same with the Zulu in South Africa. A big victory at Isandlwana was followed by a loss at Roarke’s Drift and they lost the war (compare and contrast the Zulu and British tactics between those two for ideas). So, timing. Guerrilla tactics are based around hit-and-run, surprise attacks, not stand up battles. So long as the US and British armies could maintain their supply lines of men and material, they were going to win, unless as happened in Vietnam it took too long (although Vietnam is... well... I’m way oversimplifying. But this is too long as it is!)

A modern army sits at the end of a long industrialised high-tech supply line. The vast majority of your soldiers will be clueless how to manufacture explosives and ammo using the existing technology base. They will have little clue how to use lances, swords, pikes and long bows. They’re used to immediate long-distance communications (radios). They’d likely pick up crossbows easily.

What size unit (platoon, company, battalion, etc.)? Is it a combat unit? You do realize not every unit in, e.g., the US Army, is a combat unit? Combat capabilities vary. If they have only the arms, ammo, etc., that’s on-hand, the specific unit will have varying capabilities.

But the above is one path. Your modern unit is a logistics or support unit, not front-line combat unit, that is very limited on current combat capabilities, arms and ammo, without artillery or air support. If they run out of bullets before the opponents run out of bodies then they’re toast.

The Battle of Endor was ridiculous, mostly, but it highlights another aspect. Terrain. The US published many studies about the experiences of the US military in Vietnam. They concluded that heavy jungle was a significant factor is ‘leveling’ the field against more lightly-armed Viet Cong and North Vietnamese regulars. There was also body count, the Vietnamese were willing to accept a significantly higher loss ratio than was the US.

So why, on Endor, was there no air support? No artillery? A couple of well-placed air-to-ground missiles would’ve taken the Ewok’s tree cities out. Instead, they simply slugged it out in a jungle. And without an overwhelming force. Stupid, stupid, stupid. But some thoughts for you to use to ‘even the odds.’

WWII and many examples since show that house to house and street by street urban fighting is another terrain that allows lightly armed partisans to strongly resist even armoured attacks. Read about the battles for (especially for your case) Warsaw and Stalingrad, as well more recent examples such as Mogadishu.

So don’t let your battle happen on an open plain unless your modern weapons are strictly limited on ammunition. And the opponents have overwhelming numbers.

S.M. Stirling’s Nantucket series posits the modern island of Nantucket being transported back to 1250 B.C. They have what modern weapons and equipment were on the island and on Coast Guard ships that were moored there. They couldn’t simply shoot and blow everyone else up. While they knew about modern tech (at least 1990s tech) they didn’t have the facilities to build it. They also generally lacked various skills, I for example worked in a modern copper smelter, I understand the general process, but building a copper or iron smelter? From scratch?

Harry Turtledove has many different examples of alternate history, such as his Guns of the South, where time-travelling apartheid-era South Africans take modern weapons to supply the Confederacy in the American Civil War. Things work out differently...

This is too long already, but I like this joke to illustrate the American model of war fighting.

You’re in a stand of trees, another stand a couple of hundred meters (yards) away. To determine who’s there, fire a couple of rifle shots. If disciplined rifle fire is returned, they’re British. If machine gun fire is returned, they’re Germans. If nothing happens and a few minutes later the entire stand of trees you’re hiding in is leveled by artillery fire, they’re Americans.

 

[Sextified]

Terrain. Tactics. Timing. Logistics. Battles are won by the first three. Wars are won by the last.

- - - - -

You’re in a stand of trees, another stand a couple of hundred meters (yards) away. To determine who’s there, fire a couple of rifle shots. If disciplined rifle fire is returned, they’re British. If machine gun fire is returned, they’re Germans. If nothing happens and a few minutes later the entire stand of trees you’re hiding in is leveled by artillery fire, they’re Americans.

Bloody brilliant!

For those of you old enough to remember, there was a DC comic book series called "The Warlord", and it was practically the only DC offering that I ever read.

A modern Vietnam-era SR-71 pilot is sent back to a place that time forgot where magic was real. He learned to use a sword really quick! Fans always wondered how the new caches of bullets for his .44 AutoMag pistol kept showing up just in time for the next issue.

Wonderful series though. Think Samurai Jack with an American twist.

The best way to even the odds is to give the Medieval group all the local knowledge and support. Have the modern communications be shut down or missing altogether. Limited resupply on one side, and fresh bodies and arms pouring in on the other.

It's hard to keep shooting people, when you have to take time off from the fighting to forage, and have to keep on the move before the locals can just overwhelm you with sheer numbers.

 

[oggbashan]

As I said above, the Battle of Omdurman was the prime example of a modern (19th-century modern) army against medieval arms, but the former Mahdi's forces did have some rifles and muskets. They were outranged by the artillery and machine guns.

The British and allied forces were outnumbered about two to one but the casualties? 47 dead to 12,000 and the British toll might have been lower except for a stupid and unnecessary cavalry charge in which the young Winston Churchill participated.

Edited for PS: It depends HOW modern. Recently an urban fighting exercise in the US was aborted because 200 British Royal Marines defeated 1,000 US infantry. The Marines had the latest equipment, drones, remote-controlled grenades, etc, and hi-tech computer systems. They operated in small groups and their equipment nullified the US troops' numerical advantage.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

Also, Frank Herbert's Holtzman shield, from Dune.

Indeed. There was a Sci-Fi short story years ago in which a scientist discovered a field (wave? Ray?) which would cause conventional explosives (which includes propellant, of course) to go off by themselves. Top secret and immediate conversion of modern forces back to edged weapons, bows, etc before the device was to be used against a modern foe. Cannot remember who wrote it, sadly.

Edit. Come to think of it, Joe Haldeman’s The Forever War postulates a ‘stasis field’ that which essentially negated electromagnetic energy in anything not covered with a special coating. That had the soldiers deployed by spacecraft and fighting with swords and spears.

That, the Holtzman Field, etc are classic examples of, as Clarke’s 3rd law notes, sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic.

 

[oggbashan]

Frederick Pohl's The Wizards of Pung's Corners is a short story about how over complicated modern hardware was defeated by basic shotguns...

 

[lovecraft68]

Even a highly disciplined medieval force would lose its cool when faced with those strange sticks making such infernal noise. I pity the cavalry unit trying to charge a gun emplacement. The horses would panic well before any bullets will hit and the riders will follow suit the moment their comrades' chest plates are perforated.

The anime "Gate", despite all its tropes, gives some rather spot-on examples. Also, there is something else modern militaries have to scare the living Bejeezus out of their opponents. White phosphorous, claymores and tactical nukes, if you really want to go scorched earth on their asses.

 

[Handley_Page]

Terrain. Tactics. Timing. Logistics. Battles are won by the first three. Wars are won by the last.
.
.
This is too long already, but I like this joke to illustrate the American model of war fighting.

You’re in a stand of trees, another stand a couple of hundred meters (yards) away. To determine who’s there, fire a couple of rifle shots.
If disciplined rifle fire is returned, they’re British.
If machine gun fire is returned, they’re Germans.
If nothing happens and a few minutes later the entire stand of trees you’re hiding in is leveled by artillery fire, they’re Americans.

Abso-bloody-lutely