So I'm bored in pharmacy class and started writing some stuff in my spare time. Enjoy! Discuss!
"Move swift as the Wind and closely-formed as the Wood. Attack like the Fire and be still as the Mountain."
- Sun Tzu, The Art of War
This is just a few thoughts on dwarven militaries (both fantasy genre and DF). As a military history nut I've done a lot of studying up on various nations and their military strategies, particularly pre-Colonial wars. I'd like to contrast and compare a few examples and gauge their value in the dwarven mindset. Read on if you like, you might learn something! Theorycrafting can be just as rewarding as legendary cheesemaking.
First we'd need to consider the variables associated with typical dwarven combat, both at the individual level and at the strategic level. First and foremost is their environment-- as dwarves are bound primarily to mountains and hills, their wars are heavily influenced by their living habits and terrain. It's typical dwarven fashion both in DF and fantasy to 'turtle up' and play defensively, building lavish yet functional homes and defending them to the last. It's very rare to find anything in the fantasy genre where dwarves are on the offensive - so rare in fact that I can't think of a single example, and I've read a LOT of mediocre fluff fantasy.
The turtle strategy works well for dwarves. Subterranean tunnels are easily trapped and very easily defended due to natural chokepoints. This allows very few dwarves to defend against much larger groups of enemies; it can thus be inferred that the dwarven tendency towards solitary heroics, heavily armored defenders, and shields are due to the necessity to make every dwarf count. Much like the Roman legions against the unarmored Gallic hordes, a small, elite group with intense training and strong discipline can very easy outmatch much larger, more disorganized forces.
A second variable to take into consideration is the physical capacity of individual dwarves themselves. Sturdy, mechanically-inclined, resistant to diseases and poisons, and short (compared to most surface races), they are nonetheless slow in movement by comparison and not particularly agile, like more slender races such as elves or goblins. This maximizes their strengths in defense, but gives them poor mobility and a certain difficulty against enemies able to very quickly adapt their tactics.
"He should also, as a matter of course, know his tactics; for a disorderly mob is no more an army than a heap of building materials is a house."
- Socrates
However, real-life history has shown that purely defensive wartime tactics are difficult to use effectively - enemies on the doorstep are typically a bad sign, and a lot can go bad by only reacting to enemy movements, rather than acting independently. The ancient Greek city-states - Athens, Sparta, Syracuse, Ephesus, etc - fared well against their neighbours and against each other, but rarely took the offensive as kingdoms like Macedon or Rome did, and eventually suffered for it. This was because the traditional military unit for centuries in the Mediterranean was the hoplite.
The hoplite phalanx had some strict requirements. It was typically formed of several rows of infantry armed with spear or pike, and shield. The front rank would lock shields and extend their spears, while subsequent rows would angle their spears to catch arrows and discourage cavalry charges. If the formation was lost, the protective 'shell' and fighting effectiveness was nullified; if attacked unexpectedly in the flank or rear, the phalanx was unable to cope, as the men would be all shoving forward against each other. Two phalanxes meeting in the battlefield typically ended up as a pushing match between two walls of spears, with cavalry trying to poke the flanks and skirmisher lines throwing javelins or using slings/bows to disrupt the phalanx walls.
What if dwarves used the phalanx formation? It's relatively unheard of in fantasy literature for them to use it, though I have seen some examples of the related shield-wall. In the shield-wall formation, the front rank lock or raise shields to form a single defensive barrier. Since dwarves don't typically use spears, this is an understandable compromise -- it speaks well to the dwarven ethos of cooperation and discipline to protect each other and allow the enemy to break against an impenetrable wall of shields and axes.
"Archery is no test of manly bravery; no! he is a man who keeps his post in the ranks and steadily faces the swift wound the spear may plough."
- Euripides, Greek playwright
In subterranean tunnels, the phalanx would work well, given a few assumptions - one, rather than the pike, dwarves would need much shorter spears, likely made of pure metal or metal-tipped fungus wood. Even then they would need an alternate transport method -- it would be impossible to hold them upright, for one. However, given the right circumstances and tactics, a wall of beards, spears and shields marching forward down a tunnel would be devastating for any enemy. A serious weakness, though, would be the same as the real life phalanx -- an enemy who came from behind, perhaps from a side tunnel, would make quick work of them and their supply train. They would likely to drop their spears (or design collapsible spears?) just to turn around.
In the open, a dwarven hoplite phalanx would have amplified strengths and weaknesses of the human one. Virtually impenetrable from the front, their small size and low speed would make them extremely vulnerable to attacks from the flank or rear. Not only that, but the traditional hoplite protected their flanks with cavalry wings, which the dwarves lack.
"Let us form one body, one heart, and defend to the last warrior our country, our homes, our liberty, and the graves of our fathers."
- Tecumseh, Shawnee Chief
In later warfare, around the Renaissance, the phalanx made a sort of resurgence, as the Spanish Tercio. Typically this was a hollow square of disciplined pikemen, with swordsmen in the middle and crossbows on the flanks; later this evolved into purely pikemen with musketeers. The ranged units could move to the flanks quickly or be protected from heavy cavalry (such as the heavy knights fielded by most nations) by moving into the square. The tercio dominated 16-17th century warfare.
Dwarves by nature would excel using this formation-- with a twist. Rather than pikes or spears, their traditional weapons would be used instead, axe, hammer, or sword plus strong, heavy shield, with a core of crossbowmen. This would make them more vulnerable to cavalry, though this can be mitigated by using longer axes or hammers with hooks, similar to the glaive or voulge. Due to their extreme defensive abilities, the crossbow tercio could effectively be a mobile turtle on the battlefield, impenetrable to all but heavy artillery and capable of laying down a constant, withering rain of bolts.
This formation would be difficult to use underground, however. It would be most effective in a modified form: a tunnel-mobile 'sandwich' of heavily armored axe or hammerdwarves with a group of crossbows in between. Given enough space between individuals, the crossbows could maintain fire on sighted enemies and remain protected by their more armored guards. In a protracted battle, they could fill gaps in the battle line by using short axes or hammers.
One more interesting Middle Ages unit that the dwarves would find highly effective is the Genoese crossbowman. Unlike most ranged military units, the Genoese crossbowmen wore fairly heavy armor - usually helmet, chainmail shirt, and large shield, and armed with either a sword or dagger and a heavy, well-built Genoese crossbow. They were so effective a fighting force that they were sent out as mercenaries throughout Europe and the Middle East, taking part in a staggering variety of battles and conflicts. The heavy shields they wore would usually be worn on the back or jammed in the ground ahead of them, creating a protective barrier while they reloaded. In Eastern warfare, this type of armored ranged + melee unit was fairly common, such as the Japanese ashigaru.
Dwarves would find this mobile, modernized combat method extremely effective, given again a few differences. Number one that most dwarven combat takes place up close and personal- a dagger would be far too flimsy a weapon for them, yet their heavier weapons would mean less room for their crossbows, shields, and bolts. A superb force in the Genoese style would be a mix of everything: light crossbows, heavy shields, chainmail armor, and hand axes or small warhammers for the entire force. It would be effective against everything from ranged and armored foes to subterranean hordes, allow them to form an impromptu shield wall, and change formations on the fly when necessary.
One more note: The Roman legions were well trained and equipped to be more like warrior-engineers, which the dwarves would obviously excel at as well. A Roman army was expected to be able to create a temporary fort, or more permanent structures like stone roads and bridges, many of which still exist and are used to this day. One might infer, therefore, that a dwarven army would function in a very similar capacity - in fact, it would likely be their only method of surface or tunnel construction, given that outside their homes they face a fairly hostile world, either surface or subterranean. In addition, dwarven militia at least can easily switch between military and civilian tasks without much trouble and are often skilled at more than simply warfare; therefore it is quite likely they would have skilled miners and stonemasons capable of carving building materials straight out of nearby stone formations. This would allow them to craft extremely defensible redoubts in a wide variety of surroundings.
Therefore we can infer that the most effective dwarven combat unit would have the following:
* Light or medium crossbow
* Hand axe, short sword, mace, or warhammer
* Steel-plated helmet or steel-rimmed cap (face mask optional)
* Chainmail shirt or steel halfplate armor (depending on mobility requirements)
* Either steel greaves, chainmail leggings, or chain shirt that reaches below the knee (aka hauberk)
* Large shield, preferably metal-embossed wood or hardened leather
* Satchel or backpack with supplies and bolts
* Entrenching tool (bit of a modernized anachronism, but something the dwarves could conceive of - pick + shovel + blade)
Advantages:Well-balanced against most enemies
Effective in or out of narrow tunnels
Good mobility and capable of changing formations as needed - tercio when surrounded, shield wall vs. a frontal charge, skirmish line vs. ranged enemies
Mostly self-sufficient
Easy to equip or unequip if surprised or ambushed
Protected when reloading crossbows
Disadvantages:Less effective against cavalry, particularly heavy cavalry charges
Requires a supply of bolts or a method of fletching in the field
Lots of heavy equipment means good strength training and discipline are needed, plus expensive
Need a LOT of training -- melee, crossbow, shield fighting.
Crossbows are ineffective in the rain
Difficult to replace broken crossbow strings in the field
Possible to accidently hit friendlies in close-quarters or narrow tunnels
In combat, they would first open fire on any enemies in range, using a rolling reload -- first rank fires then moves back and reloads, while the second rank moves up. If enemies begin to close, front rank pulls shield wall while subsequent ranks fire overhead or through gaps. When attacked from behind, the rear ranks about-face with shields and melee weapons while inner 'core' fire crossbows at any targets of opportunity. The front and rear ranks, if they aren't using their bows, can drop their quivers in the center for more ammunition.
We've discussed dwarves, let's talk about their enemies.
Dwarves typically fight other subterranean creatures - goblins, for the most part, though they can also fight elves, humans, and a wide variety of other races in fantasy literature, such as drow elves, trolls, gnomes, and so on. Again they almost always fight on the defensive against invaders rather than doing the invading -- their style of combat exemplifies 'home turf' advantage. Their enemies are usually the opposite, and are well adapted to doing so.
Goblins typically fight in loosely (or not) organized bands, though are known to gather in large armies (aka hordes), similar to fantasy orcs. In real life, this somewhat mirrors the fighting style of the Gallo-Celtic clans of the ancient world, though in later days they were disciplined enough to use the shield wall. The Celtic tribes would simply charge at the enemy much like the more modern Chinese 'human wave' doctrine, where simply throwing enough bodies at the enemy would be enough.
"The Romans were terrified by the fine order of the Celtic host, and the dreadful din, for there were innumerable horn -blowers and trumpeters, and the whole army were shouting their war-cries."
- Polybius, 2nd century BC
This is far more efficient for poorly-armed countries than rich ones -- where the Romans had the infrastructure and income to outfit their troops with excellent equipment (though early on, they had to buy their gear themselves), disorganized tribes such as the Gauls, Dacians, or Galatians, while having good mining techniques, had no centralized professional military and as such their warriors were equipped based on their personal wealth. A sword and armor was a luxury; most levied 'troops' were simply given a spear and wooden shield. Personal bravery was paramount and led to a variety of tactics to raise morale for themselves and lower it for their enemies -- ambush tactics, war drums, displays of aggression, and so on.
"Odin’s men [berserkers and úlfheðnar] went armor-less into battle and were as crazed as dogs or wolves and as strong as bears or bulls. They bit their shields and slew men, while they themselves were harmed by neither fire nor iron."
- Yngling Saga
Certain Germanic/Celtic/Scandinavian tribes also used something often surprisingly lacking in fantasy tropes - the 'berserker', who went above and beyond the typical (lack of) bravery of the common levy and entered a terrifying battle frenzy, usually with the help of various substances (mushrooms or booze). In fact, in most fantasy genres the berserker is idealized due to their fearlessness and bravery; rarely will you see it in goblins or orcs, and certainly not less aggressive races like elves. In D&D, the berserker frenzy is typified by the 'barbarian' class, though it rarely plays out as a true berserker rage and more just a temporary 'hulking out' of strength.
"They cut off the heads of enemies slain in battle and attach them to the necks of their horses. The blood-stained spoils they hand over to their attendants and carry off as booty, while striking up a paean and singing a song of victory; and they nail up these first fruits upon their houses... they embalm in cedar oil the heads of the most distinguished enemies."
- Diodorus Siculus, 1st century BC
The goblins that dwarves face most often are reasonably equipped, almost never with standardized equipment (like the Celtic warriors) but instead with equipment they probably acquired themselves. They too typically try to affect an enemy's morale - abusing corpses of enemies, raiding unattended livestock, wearing trinkets constructed of sentient beings, etc. This is usually not effective against disciplined dwarven warriors, but the untrained and inexperienced would surely find it disturbing. Most dwarven enemies (save humans) lack much in the way of mechanical or smelting knowledge, giving dwarves a large advantage, though certainly they can mimic dwarven technology in their crude way (leading to goblin crossbowmen or archers, for example). Some tropes paint goblins (and sometimes gnomes) as the 'crazy inventor' counterpoint of sturdy, engineering-oriented dwarves, with dangerous and unpredictable results.
"The whole race... is madly fond of war, high-spirited and quick to battle... and on whatever pretext you stir them up, you will have them ready to face danger, even if they have nothing on their side but their own strength and courage."
- Strabo, 1st Century BC, on the Celts
One area that dwarves are at a distinct disadvantage in most fantasy tropes is in their lack of magic. While some describe dwarves using magical runes, most often the typical dwarf distrusts the use of magic. Certainly not -priestly- magic, which seems to appeal to the natural conservatism and traditionalism that's at the heart of every dwarf; dwarven clerics and priests are common. This is most obvious when dwarves face necromancers -- sometimes even dwarven necromancers, who have risen above their natural distrust and ethics to achieve their goals. Dwarves have virtually no defense against a necromancer attack, as their defensive abilities can be worn down by the relentless dead. In a war of attrition, the undead win every time, and typical dwarven defense-is-the-best-offense fighting style makes finding and killing the necromancers a difficult proposition.
Though elves in DF don't (YET) use any sort of magic, except their supernatural (or ultranatural?) ability to tame dangerous animals, it can be thus implied that if they ever did master the arcane, they would have a very potent weapon against dwarven settlements and troops. A dwarven group that lacked protective magic of their own (such as warding runes) would be terribly vulnerable against any sort of magical attack. If dwarven protection against magic relied on priests or clerics, they would have to be extremely well-defended, since dwarven approaches to magic or guile are less than optimal.
Much like the Roman legions (who I use a lot as examples because they share a significant proportion of similarities to dwarven armies), the dwarves would be at their more vulnerable against fast, mobile attackers who outranged them in the open. Dwarves keep to the tunnels for good reason - the style of close quarters fighting suits them well, and a few dwarves can easily defend a tunnel against much higher numbers, much like a goalie blocking a hockey net. Their worst nightmare would be the very same as that of the Romans -- the horse archer. The Romans attempted several times to invade north of the Danube in eastern Europe (modern-day Ukraine), and failed with often catastrophic results, much like Darius I of Persia. He attempted to invade the Ukraine and the horse-mounted bowmen there, the Skolotoi (aka Saka, aka Scythian), and things didn't go so well for him.
Dwarves would fare just as badly against mobile archers as they did- probably more so. Composite bows are extremely powerful; the Romans discovered much to their dismay that a powerful enough bow could launch arrows through steel boots and pin their infantry to the ground. Crossbows, while excelling against armored targets, reload much too slowly to match against experienced mounted archers, who can also carry significantly more ammunition and retreat to get more if necessary. Granted, this also requires that the battle is taking place out in the open field, or large enough caverns, and no sane dwarf would ever allow their army to fight that way.
"In our country there are no towns nor cultivated land. If however you are determined upon bloodshed, one thing there is for which we will fight - the tombs of our forefathers. Find those tombs and try to wreck them, and you will soon know whether or not we are willing to fight."
- Scythian King Idanthyrus to Darius of Persia
More to come eventually once I have some more free time. Feel free to add your own comments or interesting tidbits.
Author
Topic: A long essay about dwarven military vs. RL (Read 13918 times)