While We Wait: The Next Generation

[Sanotra]

I wasn't talking individual battles, I was talking long-term (though it was poor wording on my part, to be sure). You fight the steppe by making it disappear.

Are you talking to me, because that did not answer my questions

 

[North King]

No, to Masada.

 

[Masada]

1. Who wrote all that?

The book is in one of my bookcases. In any case its just simple supplies and logistics. In the literature there exists massive tables of what different breeds of horses eat (ratio of grain to grass), how much (of both), how much different types of soldiers eat, what they eat etc.

2. Why does it take 6 supply wagons to double the marching length instead of just 2?

Diminishing returns. Simply speaking your extra wagons are feeding themselves on the way up, before they are feeding the combat troops.

3. Didn't Russian and Chinese forces have supply stations/forts all along their war routes so they could resupply easily without returning all the way back to base?

They help. But unless they are growing the food themselves, they still require large supply trains or boats to move the supplies forward, they also require troops to guard and garrison then and only tend to only add minor depth to the possible avenues of advance.

I wasn't talking individual battles, I was talking long-term (though it was poor wording on my part, to be sure). You fight the steppe by making it disappear.

In the long term the only means of projecting power into the steppe until the advent of the railway was to adopt, co-opt and adapt pre-existing tactics and more broadly speaking strategy to fight steppe nomads. You make the steppe disappear by reducing their ability to move, by constricting them into smaller geographic pockets where you have an increased chance of meeting and engaging the enemy, you also win by exterminating their homes and families and forcing your static defenses including walled towns, cities and more prosaic defenses forward; proportional to your ability to deny the enemy movement further out. You don't advance to meet them with static defenses, unless you wish to be fighting them at your towns, cities and fields - the squishy insides of an agricultural state - every-time they advance. No, you want depth, warning and the ability to contest their advance prior to them reaching your static lines.

 

[North King]

In the long term the only means of projecting power into the steppe until the advent of the railway was to adopt, co-opt and adapt pre-existing tactics and more broadly speaking strategy to fight steppe nomads. You make the steppe disappear by reducing their ability to move, by constricting them into smaller geographic pockets where you have an increased chance of meeting and engaging the enemy, you also win by exterminating their homes and families and forcing your static defenses including walled towns, cities and more prosaic defenses forward; proportional to your ability to deny the enemy movement further out. You don't advance to meet them with static defenses, unless you wish to be fighting them at your towns, cities and fields - the squishy insides of an agricultural state - every-time they advance. No, you want depth, warning and the ability to contest their advance prior to them reaching your static lines.

Umm... yeah. I don't think I was contradicting that.

 

[Masada]

Steppe nomads are normally fought with numbers, as agricultural societies can raise far more men than they.

I've shown that raw numbers are not a predictor of success. I don't know how many cossacks there were, but I doubt they would have outnumbered their enemies by a large amount at any given time operationally.

 

[North King]

I've shown that raw numbers are not a predictor of success. I don't know how many cossacks there were, but I doubt they would have outnumbered their enemies by a large amount at any given time operationally.

...You populate an enemy out of a landscape. That's why you're able to build enough to constrain and contract around the tribes.

 

[Masada]

...You populate an enemy out of a landscape. That's why you're able to build enough to constrain and contract around the tribes.

And the Russian steppes were heavily populated? Numbers are not the only way to do it.

 

[North King]

And the Russian steppes were heavily populated? Numbers are not the only way to do it.

Relatively speaking, the Russian side of the border is much more densely populated than the nomadic side.

 

[Sanotra]

New questions:
1. What is the title of the book?
2. Why do you have it? >.<
3. Can you please type more? For whatever reason its a really good read =D
4. If you start with two supply wagons at the location of the army, and they are marched with the army.. Then couldn't you double the mileage? Or am I off on something? Because along my thinking if they start together you don't have diminishing returns.

 

[Masada]

Relatively speaking, the Russian side of the border is much more densely populated than the nomadic side.

You just proved my point. They didn't populate them out of it

Steppe nomads are normally fought with numbers, as agricultural societies can raise far more men than they.

I think this whole instrumentation-scientification of history has miles to go before it can provide adequately nuanced or sophisticated answers assuming of course that it provides 'answers' to begin with. It reminds me of the early days of econometrics, crudity heaped upon crudity, generalization heaped upon generalization, all based on the erroneous assumption that you can discount and approximate the individual through a look at the whole group (which is still yet to be dealt with adequately). I'm not insulting anyone, I'm merely pointing out that this aspect of history is still in its infancy and really has alot to learn from different disciplines including especially economics. Broadly speaking I think all historians or aspiring historians would benefit from an understanding of even basic economics as a set of instruments which can be applied broadly to most aspects of human endeavor.

 

[Masada]

1. What is the title of the book?

I don't know where I put it and the title isn't coming to mind. It's just a general outline of nomads vs. settled agricultural societies but the example is stellar and checks out with my other sources.

2. Why do you have it? >.<

I can function if required in a supplies and logistics capacity in the military with a little more training.

3. Can you please type more? For whatever reason its a really good read =D

Remind me when I get back from holiday in a week.

4. If you start with two supply wagons at the location of the army, and they are marched with the army.. Then couldn't you double the mileage? Or am I off on something? Because along my thinking if they start together you don't have diminishing returns.

A quick example:

You have two wagons, with four horses (two per wagon) and two drivers (one per wagon) along with a patrol of twenty men. Each person eats one unit of food a day. Each horse eats fodder equivalent in space and weight taken up by two people's food in one day.

So with those numbers, you have eight units of fodder eaten by the horses a day and twenty two units of food consumed by the two drivers and twenty soldiers per day. For a total of 30 units of food eaten per day.

Now change that number to six wagons, you have twelve horses (two per wagon) and six drivers (one per wagon) along with a patrol of twenty men. Each person eats one unit of food a day. Each horse eats fodder equivalent in space and weight taken up by two people's food in one day.

So with those numbers, you have twenty four units of fodder eaten by the horses a day and twenty six units of food consumed by the six drivers and twenty soldiers per day. For a total of 50 units of food eaten per day.

 

[Sanotra]

Ah ha I see, makes perfect sense, ty for explaining it

 

[Sanotra]

Side note: I just installed the gimp image editor, and the program is in russian >.<

 

[Birdjaguar]

Side note: I just installed the gimp image editor, and the program is in russian >.<

I downloaded the English version.

 

[Sanotra]

I downloaded the English version.

I didn't even know I downloaded the russian version

 

[Crezth]

The Cyrillic didn't tip you off?

 

[Masada]

I don't think this argument has been put forward to my knowledge in its entirety but its related to what NK said about "Cosmovision".

Everyone is aware of the four factors of the economy, land, labor, capital and entrepreneurship correct?

Everyone should be aware even somewhat of the idea that land and labor were the dominant factors until the industrial revolution made capital and entrepreneurship relatively more important [Re: Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations].

Is anyone here aware that in countries where land was the dominant factor, i.e Europe and China and population was secondary that wars typically involved larger casualties because people were relatively speaking cheaper to sacrifice than the loss of land. This was because as population grew, land became scarce and more valuable, the incentive to fight to protect territory was therefore greater; people who were a dime a dozen could not compete with the value of the land. We can see this throughout history, European wars increased in lethality as time went on punctuated with the occasional bout of population recession [Re: Black Death] and the incentive to fight for relatively less valuable land became significantly less. China had a more variable history, we don't see an increase in lethality over the whole history, which is probably linked to the relative complexity and fragility of the food production system (rice) vs. other systems in use in Europe, the sheer density of the population and increased specialization and specification of the military away from the general populace.

In some societies, the opposite was true, population was the dominant factor since land was relatively speaking abundant i.e South East Asia (especially the Malay Archipelago) and Mesoamerica spring to mind. In wars involving these societies land could be sacrificed far more readily than population, the notion of European states with their land related borders didn't work, they tended to be defined more by an ethnic grouping or some other sort of grouping. The Malay Mandala's - "nations" in the European sense - tended to be defined by the interpersonal links of the Maharaja to the individual Rajas. Wars tended to involve blockading, skirmishing and the exchange of the same city again and again for little gain. Monarchs couldn't impose taxes, because a population was want to uproot and move to the next bit of adjacent land under another Rajas control or in an area not affected by the tax. I gather much the same happened in Mesoamerica, borders were not defined by land control but had more to do with a network of vassals and kin. The lethality of wars was also proportionally less, you couldn't sacrifice valuable people for worthless land, wars thus tended to be inconclusive to western eyes used to a change in land ownership, but were conclusive in the views of these others who saw the growth of the Mandala (useful word) as an outwards manifestation of strength and prestige.

This was mostly prompted by the inability of any moderator thus far to understand the Malay Archipelago and how cities consistently were abandoned then re-founded down the coast at a more opportune location away from trouble. It's also prompted by an inability to understand why a system of "nation-states" in the western land tied sense never developed in much of the world.

So in answer to NKs point about western cosmovisions, I tender the notion that we are by necessity and by the mods own preconceptions about a nation tied to land pushed into a view which is Euro-centric.

 

[das]

EDIT: plus lines of fortifications, though the Russian ones as I understand them were a lot more flexible than some silly Great Wall.

We had both. Well, there was no Great Wall, but many cities in southeastern European Russia were originally fortresses. They were mostly connected by rivers which is related to my point about riverine Cossacks; the Cossack river flotillas were an important factor in the conquest and defense of the Volga-Don region, being a huge edge over the Tatars who just had their cavalry and usually little beside that. And ofcourse there were the gulyay-gorods, which were widely and efficiently used against all kinds of Tatars, which is what I thought North King was talking about.

I wasn't talking individual battles, I was talking long-term (though it was poor wording on my part, to be sure). You fight the steppe by making it disappear.

Well, yes. After Yermak (who was something of an unconscious inspiration for Kirost, incidentally, now that I thought of it) opened the way colonisation was ultimately inevitable due to the aforementioned ethnic momentum and the demographic growth, shaky though it was.

Relatively speaking, the Russian side of the border is much more densely populated than the nomadic side.

Very relatively speaking at best. The eastern parts of Russia were very sparsely populated, though I guess that Sibir was even more so. The colonists did not exactly overwhelm any natives with numbers until much later on; throughout the 17th and first half of the 18th centuries if not further there were sparse small Russian colonies in a sea of sparse but somewhat more numerous small native villages. Hence the high importance of intermarriage, the mixed anthropological types of many culturally pure modern Siberian (and slightly less so, Uralic) Russians, and so on. So it is a very long-term development we are talking about here.

They didn't populate them out of it

Yes, we poisoned them with fire water and corrupted their bloodlines instead; far more cost-effective than trying to send any large amounts of peasants to Siberia.

Re: the Mandalas: yes, I've been reading up on that lately. Still, it is also important to remember that confederacies and unions between regional centers are not unheard of. They just tended to be rather shaky and unstable. Certainly Symphony D.'s Oceanic Empire should not have been able to rise in the first place because any personal ties would be of limited importance.

but were conclusive in the views of these others who saw the growth of the Mandala (useful word) as an outwards manifestation of strength and prestige.

Just what is meant under growth if it's not territorial expansion, though? Enrichment? Grandeur?

Anyway, arguably mandalas had some shared traits with early Dark Age states and their equivalents elsewhere in Europe (we call them "the barbarian kingdoms", which is as good a term as any). It's just that the factors that allowed their evolution into more territorial and centralised states were not present in South-East Asia. Moti was supposed to be at least somewhat close to European (and Indo-European in general) barbarians in certain basic regards, though there are other inspirations as well. Our territorial states are yet to form, though; the main national (as opposed to personal) reasons for the conquest of Bisria were plunder and tribute, and (to a lesser extent and mostly only really considered after the conquest was done) exporting ambitious family members to new lands. Ofcourse, the humans are much more European (but: not Modern European) in nature than the godlikes. Still, we are probably going to head that way, at least partly, or so it looks for now.

 

[Masada]

The colonists did not exactly overwhelm any natives with numbers until much later on; throughout the 17th and first half of the 18th centuries if not further there were sparse small Russian colonies in a sea of sparse but somewhat more numerous small native villages. Hence the high importance of intermarriage, the mixed anthropological types of many culturally pure modern Siberian (and slightly less so, Uralic) Russians, and so on. So it is a very long-term development we are talking about here.

Victory!

Just what is meant under growth if it's not territorial expansion, though? Enrichment? Grandeur?

Trade in the Malay Archipelago. Srivijaya for instance doesn't appear to have have levied any taxes internally. The Maharajah did however control the flow of trade goods inside the Mandala, feeder cities sold goods to the Maharajah or his agents which were then transshipped to "Srivijaya" the city, whence they were sold. All ships passing through the Straits were directed forced to go to "Srivijaya" for trade purposes. This was enforced by nomadic Malay pirates, who were paid a set percentage of the monies levied. Some of this money was directed to the peripheral states, to buy their loyalty or enforce existing bonds (states right on the periphery tended not to be related to the Maharajah) and large sums were directed to the hinterlands to ensure their loyalty. Realistically the state was tied intimately to the rulers prestige and interpersonal bonds given that the Maharajah didn't dominate much more than the city itself and the fertile areas directly around the city. The whole edifice of "state" thus tended to collapse with each new Maharajah, it helps to explain why they later adopted Tantric curses and why Hindu notions of kinship were adopted by a Buddhist state.

Even in agricultural states in Southeast Asia, Java for instance, you see much the same pattern of interpersonal relationships dominating the state. In Java you see some really quite interesting behaviour the Saliendra's for instance indulged in the building of massive Buddhist shrines. This was seen as a means of distributing the Kings largess to the people and to his supporters by giving them sections to build and as a means of courting divine favor.

I'm not sure about Mesoamerica.

Anyway, arguably mandalas had some shared traits with early Dark Age states and their equivalents elsewhere in Europe (we call them "the barbarian kingdoms", which is as good a term as any).

They levied taxes, which is arguably the largest difference. Otherwise they were shared some of the same characteristics. But that feeds back into my argument, population in density in Europe fell with the collapse of the Roman Empire, the value of land also proportionally declined in the 'actuarial science' of the day if you will.

It's just that the factors that allowed their evolution into more territorial and centralised states were not present in South-East Asia

It did happen with Majapahit, they more or less conformed to a European notion of the nation-state. Otherwise yes. Again a low population was a major issue to overcome.

Our territorial states are yet to form, though; the main national (as opposed to personal) reasons for the conquest of Bisria were plunder and tribute, and (to a lesser extent and mostly only really considered after the conquest was done) exporting ambitious family members to new lands. Ofcourse, the humans are much more European (but: not Modern European) in nature than the godlikes. Still, we are probably going to head that way, at least partly, or so it looks for now.

The issue is that land is a seen and known variable, population is seldom seen and seldom known except via proxies which are themselves fairly useless for such a venture. Players are therefore left with little choice but to conform to the European notion of a nation-state build on territory rather than people. Even then, population seems to count for little, it can be recouped in most fresh-starts which have longer turns, the only constraint on growth tends to be the size of your empire. You would either need to make the population of a state as variable as it is naturally and then extrapolate the results or think up a totally different methodology of going about longer turn sets. The present method leaves much to be desired.

*

In any case I'm not here for the rest of the week. In about 5 hours I'm getting on a plane and traveling to more humane temperatures. I shall be back in a week. I expect to see a new Das Iron Age project ready for me when I get back with a spot reserved for me in Southeast Asia

 

[das]

If you come up with an idea to make this "anti-Europe" work in a NES, then sure (and by "sure" I mean "maybe" , and you are crazy if you think I will be ready to launch it in a week)!