Isekai Tensei Soudouki - Ch. 49 - The Suffering Secretaries

[jonsmth]

Firstly - even that is hard enough, and then it is still only a start of an assault with still big defender's advantage.

The defender's advantage is really only when the attackers aren't on even ground yet. There's only a melee on top of the walls or in a gap of the walls, and the attackers would usually have advantage in numbers. Then again, we're talking about field fortifications; unless they have some elevated ground walled with palisade which also involves moving dirt, there's no climbing of walls happening anywhere.

What's the point if you just going to retreat before the engagement anyway? And that is in better case, if you actually engage with the enemy you'll basically deny yourself any chance to retreat fast enough.

Retreat as in just falling back into a more advantageous position in the immediate battlefield. Shoot arrows, magics, and throw stones at the approaching enemy, and then fall back before they reach the trenches. Now the enemy's formations are broken up and they have to follow you through the trenches into your traps and ambushes. Either way, you'd be fighting in more or less even ground, as the enemy can't flank you within the walls of the trenches - the enemy is bottlenecked. Heck, I bet there would be some thing about not being able to swing your weapon in tight spaces too (not that wide horizontal swinging motions are ever used in formations already). I assume the barbed wire and ranged attacks would discourage the attackers from climbing out of the trenches.

Because it's too hard and pointless. You won't have forces to have grasp of everything anyway. You need to pretty much single-handedly establish border service with all logistics and manpower required for that.

And walls aren't the same? Defenders have to man the walls too.

You can't surround everything, but you can give yourself strongpoint agains your enemy and give yourself counterattack opportunity. Also it was established local forces have cavalry, so denying yourself strategic opportunity makes no sense. Anyway, the trenches yet again the worst choice of defence.

Strongpoint as in like a castle? Invaders can't ignore castles for the threat of being hit from behind and having their logistics cut off. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Walls also deny usage of cavalry all the same. If you have any such strongpoint, the enemy might take over it and use it as a stage for their next attacks just as you argued against trenches. If the setting is similar to the later middle ages, attacking with cavalry would be futile against dense infantry formations. You could probably only use cavalry when the enemy is routed.

Actually, moats were used enough even with temporary fortifications outside castles and fortresses. Not that it's the best of options (and they used combined with other forms of defence) - just one of infinite possibilities better then trenches.

I suppose if you have to build fortifications, you'd want to implement as many things as possible. Then again, perhaps even an attacker would consider undermining against palisades if they were to attempt to employ every technique available.

So you make trenches specifically so that your enemy would have cover from your ranged attacks? Doesn't it comes as counterproductive?

The ranged attacks above ground are to force the enemy into the trenches. It's not like the defenders wouldn't employ ranged attacks in the trenches either.

Just a note here: It take into account the possibility - like every military in any time period. Noone goes with the assumption they will loose from the very beginning. Basically "if" - not "when". Also common sense tells me "maze" is highly exaggeration on your part (primarly because people lived there), but I don't know what exact castle you are talking about so never mind that.

The castle is the Hohenzollern Castle in Swabia. The implements did seem like they would have been very effective in the middle ages, but I can't be too sure since its current state which I have seen is the 3rd construction (1800s), and was occupied by the crown prince in 1945. Since the current castle was built to impress - it was basically a showpiece. "Maze" is an exaggeration, but I think I used the more apt phrase "winding paths" to describe the path that goes through multiple gates, arrow slits, and under murder holes.

Locals alredy have home field advantage and even the best armies can fall into ambush - that's why ambushes were made in the first place. Only idiot will make a stratedy relying solely on enemy incompetence.

I believe that unknowingly falling into an ambush is just incompetence and/or inexperience unless an innovation or new technology was deployed for the first time. Ambushes don't work when the enemy knows.

Ok, how can I not ridicule this? Isn't walking straight into conspicuous holes in the ground without any preparations stupid as hell? If you have time to dig trenches to disclose the location of your traps and to set up traps, wouldn't it be better to just set traps in the same place?

If you meant "conspicuous holes in the ground" as the trenches - if the only way forward is into this weird moat, then they have no choice but to walking straight into those. If you meant pitfall traps, I would assume that the defenders would disguise the holes and maybe even show themselves passing over the trap. The difference between setting up traps on flat ground and setting them up in trenches is that you're more likely to catch enemies with them as they are funneled into them. Also, another purpose of traps is to let the defenders fall back while their pursuers are slowed down by traps. The attacks can't run through the trenches as they have to look out for traps.

Shields. They tend to defend for arrowfire and don't cost much.

That depends if they were equipped with shields in the first place. At some point later in the middle ages, infantry shields were dropped in favor of two-handed weapons and partly also due to advancement in armor. Two-handed weapons are also preferred as formations and really long weapons prove effective against cavalry. You also can't climb over walls and ditches with a shield in hand. Later shields were also quite small (bucklers) and I doubt those were meant to protect the wielder from arrow fire.

Just sharpen some poles and dig them into the ground pointing towards your enemy - tends to help.

I was wondering why not these but barbed wire. Well, unless the spikes are densely placed, you could just walk through them. You also don't need a special tool to dig them out of the ground unless they were placed really deep. But yeah, they help.

Again - cavalty was not that good at breaching any defences and the reason behind stopping building huge walls was probably more on economic side. After all, castles are expencive. Peopel still built some tall walls what withstood early artillery fire. Smolensk wall, for example.

Well, if the walls break down so easily, then the effectiveness doesn't justify the cost anymore. Walls were still built later on, but not to the same size as castle walls. Later artillery is what made tall walls obsolete.

Never underestimate how much trouble do you need to go through for seemingly minimal movements. Well, if it was an empire with alredy working expeditionary corps at the ready - it would be probable, bu I think neighbours would have noticed it alredy. Remember that every soldier in medieval army is one less worker in the field. Not to mention even if you are going just ouside of your borders you need all kind of supporting personnel.

An expeditionary force would probably be made up of professionals and regulars - all who aren't already working on the fields. Sure, there would be peasant recruits, but I doubt that they would be too many. Supporting personnel during those times were usually also just men in the rally; lieutenants (and lieutenants of lieutenants) would have been tasked to do logistics (and maybe pillaging).

And the storage usually made with emergency situation in mind, so it can take long time to run out. And all this time besieging party will be on timer till reinforcement from mainland comes. That and naturally you have major forces that do basically nothing spending lots of resources while at it with less then ideal sanitary situation and probably not that good of living conditions wearing your own army much more then of your enemy. And then comes winter. Depending on climate it could become a meme for generations to come, but it's common sense you don't want to spend winter guarding some persistend bastards in the middle of nowhere, borderland. Also attackers need more forces, so they spend more resources and considering they all basically spend their time in field conditions their morale drops faster.

Marching in the spring, and then starting the siege maybe early in the summer would give you enough time before winter comes. Two or three months of no supplies coming in would be too difficult for the defenders, refugees, and an entire town. Attackers would only have to feed their soldiers, and they at least can hunt and forage even when no cattle and butter are coming their way. Well, if the field fortifications could hold the invaders for a month, then maybe having the siege last into winter just might be realistic.
While an invading army would have to be larger than the garrison to stand a chance, the total size would still be smaller than the population of a town. The defenders have more mouths to feed.

Are you saying king will reject piece of his own lands he actually had several conflicts for just so that he could get rid of Balud? Well, while it could be possible in other situation, I really doubt it's the case here.

Now that you mention it, I don't think the king would "get rid" of Balud, because there's a certain war maniac who would probably kill him if he did. However, he doesn't favor him enough over his other subjects that he would mobilize his personal army; instead, a rally to defense has to be called (for it to be an act of interest for the realm and not the king alone). Even then, it would be bad for Balud's renown if he gets saved by anyone, and this would probably go against the king's plans (he's probably raising an adversarial lord against dissenters) if Balud can't take all the achievements.
A frontier territory is only good for the realm as a buffer rather than of economic significance. There might have been many conflicts over it, but it was only so that the rest of the realm would be secure.

That's where evolution of warfare comes in. If locals of that world are not stupid they unquestionabely have countermeasures for any trouble they can potentially face. Also, have we actually seen something more powerful then bolt of lightning in the series?

tbh, I'm on the fence about the trenches because honestly, it is a questionable implement. But I thought it would be interesting to see if it was executed well - I could think of many ways to make this work (just not a thing about limiting the range of motion with swinging weapons). The big "if" is that there is some sort of implement - like magic - that would make walls obsolete and also prevent enemies from just climbing up from 2m-deep trenches.

I mentioned before, but breaching the wall is step one, what about two through ten? But honestly, I only read Sentouin as manga so I can barely speculate on what was exact reasoning behind the raid. Could be to strike tired from marching demon avantgard before main forces join the fray and the moment of opportunity would be lost. Could be to take down "siege engines" and make it easier for themselves later on. Either way, castle walls explicidely exist so that defenders would have advantage over attackers and it makes no sense to abandon it alltogether in some desperate outing.

Oh yeah, there were also flying demons, so walls were completely useless from anything other than the main ground forces; the anti-air has to be positioned far forward to hit the flying demons before they reach the walls. The "siege engines" isn't step one - it's the main breakthrough implement. Behind the walls is the city. There is no advantage to be had by sitting on top of the walls since that would mean that they would just wait for the "giant battering rams" to get close.
Either way, the city walls will still have to exist as a countermeasure against other humans; it's just that they're not good against a demon army.

P.S. Basically it all comes to - if the enemy has any weapon rivaling bullet fire en masse.

yep

On a side note, a siege engine or an artillery in the form of a single person that is a mage is nothing like what the pre-modern world has ever seen. You can hide them among the standard bearers or even in the ranks. Scouts wouldn't be able to identify them from a distance. There's no way to preemptively attack them since you don't know where they are or if they're even there. And they can move really fast especially if they're on a horse. With the relative rarity of mages (the only one we've seen use a powerful magic so far is a queen) walls still have a strong case as they would deter raids and would (still) only be vulnerable to rich/powerful attackers like lords.

 

[Wilhelm_Stenvall]

I doubt that trenches would work that well during medieval times. The whole point of trenches is that you'll have multiple lines, retreat to the ones behind, sit there and fire, weakening the oncoming enemy, then charge forward to the line you were previously at.

I really doubt that the land Balud were given is even large enough for that. Also, were are the spikes?

 

[Wadas]

@kwendy

"1) Trenches are relatively easy to dig - they are as difficult as any other field defence."

Compared to an effective moat? Not so much.

Aside from those, Dirt walls (or any upper construction) of the same scale is more of an issue due to them needing a base (meaning they either form a ramp/mound or they need more work establishing a foundation), un-evening the field (digging holes shallow and deep) is no as effective (although probably the easiest to do) and I can't really think of other "digging based" defenses.

And its more about the time/effectivity ratio than just sheer difficulty for me.

2)" You overestimate the power of long-ranged weapons "

Not really. Its just that at this scenario they probably would have a larger hit chance (or slow and tire the enemy even more if they decided to cary their shield up to try and protect from arrows), so while their lethality wouldn't be great, they would kill slightly more than if they were aiming at troops rushing on an open field and diminish the invading troops once they've reached the end of the trench (and become an even larger burden on the attacking troops since instead of rushing into combat they would be forced to walk more time with the wounds open).

If they can kill 1 tenth or even just injury 1 fifth of the invading troops, than they (+ the trenches) will be a decent hit on any invading force and pose as a good first time defense

"3) I have a hunch you might misunderstand trenches purpose: it's a cover for your infantry justified by high lethality and destructive power of projectiles - hense they are reinforced so that they won't collapse on themselves. But that's the thing: there are no machineguns or actual artillery in that world. And not only on attackers side. Defenders also cannot deal significant damage without artillery cover nor can they defend properly without pillboxes and automatic weapons of their own. Without heavy weapons trenches can be taken in minutes"

I understand their conventional purpose, but, as you've said it, this isn't their conventional situation. Therefore, I did my best to recosiliate trenches with the weapons provided at the time and how troops would react to it the first time around.

Since there's little advantage to gain fighting in close quarters in the trench, their best purpose would be to narrow the points the enemy can enter through and to slow them down, as well neutralize the use of horses, all while tiring the opponent which would be incredibly ill equipped to navigate through them.

In such scenario the most advantageous things would be to attack the enemy while it is clumped in the trenches or halted before them with long range, and since they are limited by the trenches, Ballud's forces would dictate the distance of long range combat. As such, I believe arrows (and long range magic, in which ever way it affects it) would be more effective, while also tiring and hurting the opposing forces more.

And after the enemy troops start reaching the end of the trenches, their rhythm will be slower and they will be more fatigued, while Ballud's troops can reach them with physical advantage. Add that to the fact that the entrances and exits will be limited and they become able to position themselves better.

This would be diminished if the opponent decided to camp in the trenches, which would still be risky and non-hyginecal, but that would still limit the enemy "flow" through them, which would be enough to give a sizable advantage.

Essentially, I didn't care for how they are normally used and though how I would use them in Medieval combat.

By my assessment defending forces shouldn't stay on them and make them pas through. They would limit the paths of the enemy, force them to clump together, greatly diminish their rhythm, velocity and "flow" (enemies invading at once) and would tire them a lot, while Ballud's defensive forces could take them on the other side more prepared and hit them with volleys of arrows while they are navigating them.

 

[kwendy]

@Wadas

Compared to an effective moat? Not so much.

So lack of need to consider human movements, lack of need to reinforce it makes it more difficult? How?

Aside from those, Dirt walls (or any upper construction) of the same scale is more of an issue due to them needing a base (meaning they either form a ramp/mound or they need more work establishing a foundation), un-evening the field (digging holes shallow and deep) is no as effective (although probably the easiest to do) and I can't really think of other "digging based" defenses.

You won't be living there, what do you mean "base"? They were made not to look pretty or last the winter you know, no foundation needed. And again: trenches are near useless as they are, whad do you mean "not as effective"?

And its more about the time/effectivity ratio than just sheer difficulty for me.

Avoiding huge deal of work for basically no return is also a good thing.

Not really. Its just that at this scenario they probably would have a larger hit chance

How?

troops rushing on an open field

Can you point me towards battle where infantry "rushed an open field" before the invention of muskets? Would be really educational for me.

And regarding arrows - why wouldn't attackers use arrows as well if that's the case and how exactly would trenches help injuting attackers? If anything, trenches would actually give extra cover.

I did my best to recosiliate trenches with the weapons provided at the time

Wich is honestly impressive by the way: you managed to [try] make an argument in favour of such painfully anachronistic tactics.

Since there's little advantage to gain fighting in close quarters in the trench, their best purpose would be to narrow the points the enemy can enter through and to slow them down, as well neutralize the use of horses, all while tiring the opponent which would be incredibly ill equipped to navigate through them.

Again, enemi is not obligated to navigate trenches. Just plant a hedge maze: maybe they'll fall for it. Among other things trenches do not present that big of an obstacle, can be pretty easily traversed granted there won't be an opposition in a melee range and the opposition in melee would be in huge disadvantage. So even "slowing down" is pretty marginal. As for the horses - I said it before, but most fortifications negate cavalry charge. Also I suspect it's not that easy since cavalry was used in wars up until WW2, so there is that.
If enything, transverse trenches would'ev given interesting result by breaking formation a bit. Still huge work an little payoff.

In such scenario the most advantageous things would be to attack the enemy while it is clumped in the trenches or halted before them with long range, and since they are limited by the trenches, Ballud's forces would dictate the distance of long range combat. As such, I believe arrows (and long range magic, in which ever way it affects it) would be more effective, while also tiring and hurting the opposing forces more.

So you are basically saying you dig trenches for your enemy. Except I don't think enemy would just sit in there: what's stoppong them from moving on? Great, you did all this work to mildly inconvenience enemy army. A moat would've sufficed.

And after the enemy troops start reaching the end of the trenches, their rhythm will be slower and they will be more fatigued, while Ballud's troops can reach them with physical advantage. Add that to the fact that the entrances and exits will be limited and they become able to position themselves better.

More like little workout before the engagement. Wouldn't it be better to just scout your enemy and catch them on the march? They would guaranteed to be more tired that way. And another maze argument. It does not make any sense and it will never make. Trenches are not uderground labyrinths. Ttey are not dungeons. They are not actual mazes. They are just plain dugouts, but a little bit reinforced to prevent natural collapse. From the enemy point of view there are no enters or exits. It's not that big of an obstacle to break the formation.

This would be diminished if the opponent decided to camp in the trenches

Why would anyone ever (until muskets at least) want to camp in there? There is literally nothing to gain from it and I think I alredy established it.

By my assessment defending forces shouldn't stay on them and make them pas through.

... So you design fortifications with consideration of people passing through... So that the enemy would have it harder to pass through? And you don't see any contradictions there?

Basically, using trenches as intended would make no sense, but using them not as intended would defeat the purpose of them being trenches.

 

[Wadas]

"Sorry, but I just can't observe obvious logical gaps and take it seriously. The tone does not matter though, the point stands as it is."

Tone doesn't matter for the argument on its own, but sarcasm and irony muddy the message and take things for granted more easily.

More importantly: "can't observe obvious logical gaps and take it seriously". You can. It is the internet. You have time and can avoid escalating things.

"THe enemy has ranged weapons too. So what were trenches for? "

Yes, but if you're not on the trenches they don't have advantage in shooting at it (as you would). At the same time, arrows should be worse than any other equipment while on the trenches just because of how hard it would be to aim. On the other side, trenches would slow and clump the enemy, so hitting them should be at least slightly easier.

It doesn't matter if something is symetrical if you have or can adjust it to not be symetrical.

"Also enemy is not obligated to move according to your pathing."

Either they go up and down the trenches, through the trenches (which Ballud have determined the path) or try to go above dealing with the barbed wire while avoiding to enter the trenches.

In any of those ways, either the enemy is extremely halted or he is following through a path you've built.

"I feeel like you are oversestimating the power of arrows."

No, I just believe they would have some advantages here when compared to their normal Medieval use.

"And enemy has arrows too."

But they are not in the same situation.

Ballud's troops don't have to be on or pass through the trenches. The enemies do.

The enemies are on the offensive trying to reach him. He will be trying to make them go way or lose.

There's also terrain advantage for visibility and aim.

"Again, if you just want to slow enemy down, you can just surround yourself with a moat without any fancy overcomplications. Or make a better hill for yourself, but it's a bit troublesome. Still won't be wasted effort."

I don't think Ballud wants to just slow them down.

Given, my whole assessment on how he plans to or could use them might be wrong, but I he probably isn't planning on anything conventional.





"Then why even trenches? It's just reinforced holes in the ground, just dig actual holes without wasting time and lumber to overcomplicate things. Holes in the ground - not even deep or wide - are not the least scary, enemy don't have any reason to retreat upon seeing them."

Will they go up through the trenches dealing with barbed wire*? (I'd use something else instead as that seems excessive)

Will they go through the trenches?

Will they try to do both?

It's not just holes in the ground. It disrupts the path, forces the opponent to over exert themselves, halts calvary, clumps them together in a zone were there's terrain advantage for arrow volleys from Ballud, and limits the points through which they can exit.


"1) Not that much. 2) Not really. 3) Absolutely not."

For 2 I can see an argumentation were "it's no different them they marching for battle", but I don't see them for 1 and 3

Could you explain further.

"1) Actually, proper trenches are pain to dig. 2) Again: it's not videogame where units are obligated to stay mounted in any circumstances."

1 - Fair. Should've specified more. In terms of effectiveness vs time vs effort.

2 - Yes, but I wasn't supposing that (really, don't know from were you took the videogame thing). Attacking troops being unable to use horses diminishes their velocity (and diminishes their power a little), as well as force them to reach the trenches unmounted or to unmount when they reach them.

"Wich makes them marginally easier to pass with minimum preparations."

Ehh... I have to disagree on that one. Easier to pass without preparations yes (with some pros and cons), but that means preparations are more likely for a moat (given, that's also extra time for Ballud)

"Eh, you are not obligated to fill the moat. Especially if you are not digging it around permanent fortification."

Fair. Not sure what it would affect it though.


Then why trenches in the first place? And if you don't intend to counterattack you set yourself to loss.

Counterattacking doesn't mean just attacking the attacker head first.

"Thankyou. It's only a matter of scale. You can do lot of pitfalls. Or pitch falls for that matter, though I don't know if they were actually used in real life. I think japaneze especially loved to play with fire. And you can set an ambush wherever you want, especially in forest-rich areas without giving away your point of contention with obvios manmade obstacles.

They can hit the enemy, but they are very terrain and point specific, and have on pre-battle effect (except for pitfalls. Very effective when the opponent rushes at you. Hard to make though.

"Why would trenchers - that are easy to see from distance - present any kind of surprise?"

Not the trenches. Traps in the trenches. That was what I understood from what was written involving traps in this thread.

Given, if there would be, they probably would be few, and only on major points to disrupt the current route the enemies are taking in the trench.


"They still have to fight uphill battle and it's still easier to abandon without giving your opponent serious advantage. If you have enough time to reinforce you can turn it into mini-stronghold for indefinite time for the duration of battle."

Those are good points.

"Again: you enemy is not obligated to solve your puzzles, they will just push through. It's not even that hard considering trenches designed with human size in mind. It's not like they have tower defence wave AI."

I really don't get why you interpret it this way.

They aren't puzzles. They are paths. Forcing your enemy to bypass them means they are either over exerting themselves or limiting their routes, which will slow their pace and tire them before close combat.

"Balud reinforces his trenches with wooden planks. Another pointless display of luxury on his side, but none the less requires as much resources as any useful fortification."

That's a good point, but you really could've explained it in the first place.


"Since quality of materials do not matter the least and it requires minimum refinement i'd say it is negligable. Especially sinse they have concept of combat engineers - wich by the way is pretty surprising for me."

I wouldn't really call it negligible, considering it would still take a chunk of time and logistics, but certainly shouldn't be a major part (10% of the work at best I'd say).

"Ah, my bad, those posts are getting longer and longer. Well, the thing about castles is a bit of an off-topic here and it would make posts even longer, so I won't go there (at least here)."

Yeah, that's why I prefer reddit and discuss comment systems. It's easier to not get lost.


"Between facing expected traps,"

The traps would only be expected after they've been triggered and disrupted part of the path. It's true they aren't as powerful as the ones you've suggested, but they are also a much lesser scale and made only to make the trench's paths more problematic to navigate.

"making sure to return fire while covering yourself from arrows"

If the enemies are on the trenches, using bow and arrow would be way less useful for them. Between having a limited view point and slowing their pace in the trenches.

I do agree they could cover themselves from the volleys using shields, but walking through the trenches in that position holding shields would be even more tiresome for them.

"small groups of handicapped enemies "

Yeah, that's why I would leave the troops to address melee combat only in the trenches exits (coming to Ballud), as they can flank the opponent and only fight with them while they are more fatigued.

I don't see the reason for them to enter the trenches as it is at least.

"almost nothing scary or smart in Balud's trenches."

I don't take them as scary. They look much more as a burden to diminish invading troops power and speed.

I don't know how Ballud actually expects to use the trenches, but since this is so different than their conventional use, I'm curious as to how they will be used and handled. I'm sure the author is at least going to make it entertaining.

 

[Wadas]

@Kwendy
"So lack of need to consider human movements, lack of need to reinforce it makes it more difficult? How?"

They need to be deeper and larger to be effective, as I've pointed out before. (They don't need foundations because they don't need to be stable)


Aside from those, Dirt walls (or any upper construction) of the same scale is more of an issue due to them needing a base (meaning they either form a ramp/mound or they need more work establishing a foundation), un-evening the field (digging holes shallow and deep) is no as effective (although probably the easiest to do) and I can't really think of other "digging based" defenses.

"You won't be living there, what do you mean "base"? They were made not to look pretty or last the winter you know, no foundation needed. And again: trenches are near useless as they are, whad do you mean "not as effective"?"

Base as in their base (lower part). As I've explained, they form a ramp or mound, unless one takes time to make a foundation.

"And again: trenches are near useless as they are, whad do you mean "not as effective"?""

I don't think they are useless, just that their use can't be compared to their conventional one.

Trenches force the enemy down its specific paths clumping and clogging them, diminishing their speed and flow while tiring them more.

The others don't slow or disrupt the opponent as much due to their shapes.

Ramps/mounds force the enemy to go around or up and down, but not through specific paths, which means they only diminish speed [less] and tire the opponent [more]

Moats would require a solution so they most probably would just delay the attack and diminish its power.

Walls would most possibly just create a clash point.

"Avoiding huge deal of work for basically no return is also a good thing."

You think there's no return, but I still disagree on that so this isn


"How?"

Troops clumped together and at slower pace.

And the arrows would have a smaller more pre-defined area to hit.

"Can you point me towards battle where infantry "rushed an open field" before the invention of muskets? Would be really educational for me."

Calvary use normally. Given, I only know the basics on that one due to Sengoku Jidai.

Outside from that, less than "rushed", but more in terms of the two armies clashed against one another. In the other case either it was an ambush or enemies were pressing against someone taking hold (normally at a fortification on castle). Probably could've worded myself better.

"And regarding arrows - why wouldn't attackers use arrows as well if that's the case and how exactly would trenches help injuting attackers? If anything, trenches would actually give extra cover."

Trenches would clump the enemies together and slow them down while limiting the points were it would be needed to fire. (Ballud's position indicated by the two characters seeing the trenches also helps)

And while they could be used by a few to take cover by being close to the wall, they either be slowing themselves even more or just having a few of them there.

And arrows would really be less effective being on the trenches, between limited aim and view and that it would clog the movement trough them.

"Wich is honestly impressive by the way: you managed to [try] make an argument in favour of such painfully anachronistic tactics."

I mean, that's what most of these scenarios are about. Most technologies and knowledge created in later times would've revolutionized history, be in terms of health, production or war.

I am really curious as to how they will use them though.

"Again, enemi is not obligated to navigate trenches. Just plant a hedge maze: maybe they'll fall for it."

They either go through them or avoid them.

Going up and down would be incredibly hard, unless the opponent were using their soldiers to dig exits.

That's probably the best reason Ballud has for barbed wire, to make it so that avoiding them is more problematic than its worth.

"Among other things trenches do not present that big of an obstacle, can be pretty easily traversed granted there won't be an opposition in a melee range and the opposition in melee would be in huge disadvantage."

They certainly aren't great for stopping the opponent, but they do limit his advances forward and help tire them more while creating choke points.

Well, that's what I think they will be used, as at least.

"So even "slowing down" is pretty marginal."

Most of the slow down provided by trenches would be granted by the lesser flow of enemy soldiers (the number of soldiers coming at once would be diminished) and forcing them to walk more.

"As for the horses - I said it before, but most fortifications negate cavalry charge. Also I suspect it's not that easy since cavalry was used in wars up until WW2, so there is that."

That's a good point.

"If enything, transverse trenches would'ev given interesting result by breaking formation a bit. Still huge work an little payoff."

Breaking formation is something I somehow forgot, but I think the fact it limits the amount of soldiers coming out of them all at once and the creation of choke points would be the best part of the pay-off.

"So you are basically saying you dig trenches for your enemy. Except I don't think enemy would just sit in there: what's stoppong them from moving on? Great, you did all this work to mildly inconvenience enemy army. A moat would've sufficed."

Neither do I.

In a moat the opponent has to go up and down once (which given, its a pain for them), use makeshift bridges or destroy them, but the enemy flow doesn't really change (although they probably tire the opponent more)

"More like little workout before the engagement."

Fair, albeit workout while avoiding arrows.

"Wouldn't it be better to just scout your enemy and catch them on the march? They would guaranteed to be more tired that way."

More tired and unprepared yes, but their numbers would easily overwhelm Ballud (as far as we have reports).

"And another maze argument. It does not make any sense and it will never make. Trenches are not uderground labyrinths. Ttey are not dungeons. They are not actual mazes. They are just plain dugouts, but a little bit reinforced to prevent natural collapse. From the enemy point of view there are no enters or exits. It's not that big of an obstacle to break the formation."

They aren't just moats you can stand in to fire from.

They have paths which are better for walking them going up and down and there are spots were it will be easier to leave from than others.

"So you design fortifications with consideration of people passing through... So that the enemy would have it harder to pass through? And you don't see any contradictions there?"

No. Either you build them to stop the opponent or to make it more problematic for the opponent to pass through while giving you advantages.

It's like building bridges which are better to transverse than crossing the river, but create choke points.

"Basically, using trenches as intended would make no sense, but using them not as intended would defeat the purpose of them being trenches."

Reason to be curious what the author has stored for us.

 

[kwendy]

@Wadas

Yes, but if you're not on the trenches they don't have advantage in shooting at it (as you would). At the same time, arrows should be worse than any other equipment while on the trenches just because of how hard it would be to aim. On the other side, trenches would slow and clump the enemy, so hitting them should be at least slightly easier.

Archers aren't obligated to enter the trenches either.
Also, just why would enemy be more clumped then otherwise? You have same mass of infantry on either side you can shoot at and hope it'll stick. Aiming is pretty much last minute option that happens right before melee and trenches won't make any difference here.

Either they go up and down the trenches, through the trenches (which Ballud have determined the path) or try to go above dealing with the barbed wire while avoiding to enter the trenches.
In any of those ways, either the enemy is extremely halted or he is following through a path you've built.

Just place barbed wire then,you waste leagues more time and effort on your trenches then enemy bypassing them. It would literally make no difference. Well, maybe slight annoyance.
Just ho much effort do you think is needed to overcome single trench? Not much I assure you. How many raws of trenches do you need to make a difference? Five rows? Ten rows? Dig whole battlefield? This effort literally would be better placed in any other defencive preparatioons. You can build whole fort with the time and resources spent.

No, I just believe they would have some advantages here when compared to their normal Medieval use.
But they are not in the same situation.

There are none. There is literally no difference.

Ballud's troops don't have to be on or pass through the trenches. The enemies do.
The enemies are on the offensive trying to reach him. He will be trying to make them go way or lose.
There's also terrain advantage for visibility and aim.

- Wich won't take that much effort - Enemy deals with no disadvantages with your trenches as you are not directly engaging him. You basically just make it as an obstacle course to fight the terrain - and it's not like you are digging cliffs and oceans for anemy to loose or give up - There is none. If anything, trenches would even block some shots.

I don't think Ballud wants to just slow them down.
Given, my whole assessment on how he plans to or could use them might be wrong, but I he probably isn't planning on anything conventional.

But it can't do anything else. Also author will either ignore the existance of armor or make enemy into crush dummies that move exclusively according to Balud's plan. Or ignore basic concept of highground and make fighters and crossbowman in the trenches fight on par with attackers. In best case those fortifications will never find any use.

Will they go up through the trenches dealing with barbed wire*?

Barbed wire is indeed a wild horse here. My common sense tells me that abundance of cutting tools on the battlefield makes wire ineffective, but in the other hand we have no idea as to what technology was used when creating those. Since whole concept of wire is very dubious in medieval setting the levels of potential bullsh... I mean, author's freedom is limitless. On the other hand, rather than adding to protection, trenches limit your own opportunity to attack enemy stuck dealing with metal obstacles. If wire would present significant inconvenience simillar to metal spikes (wich may or may not be forbidden by medieval treaties), it would make sense to attack the enemy while he is dealing with those. Attacking through trenches would probably be too risky as you also making your retreat path more dangerous and slow and you need to climb out of trenches in time or you'll just be trapped there.
So maybe covering the fireld without trenches would be even better idea.

For 2 I can see an argumentation were "it's no different them they marching for battle", but I don't see them for 1 and 3

For point 1 - trenches plainly don't obstruct your movement any more then just about any uneven ground. Considering potential numbers involved, any army would just stump across like any other field. As for point 3 - trenches do not have "enters" or "exits" from the point of view of your enemy. It could be regarded as just uneven ground.
Also, I should probably refer you to the view from above. Actual trenches cover very little of space, they don't restrict movement of moving army that much. They just can't.

really, don't know from were you took the videogame thing

It's just most defined image of restricting allowed actions to what amount to set of rules due to inamility to fully represent the amount of real life freedom.

Attacking troops being unable to use horses diminishes their velocity (and diminishes their power a little), as well as force them to reach the trenches unmounted or to unmount when they reach them.

Even if it denies tactical advantage, but still leaves strategical one. And that is just ideal situation. Actuality might even present unexpected opportunities for mounted option.

Counterattacking doesn't mean just attacking the attacker head first.

Wouldn't that mean enemy could just go around trenches if he founds your supposed counterattack route? Also counterattack would not be that effective with time gap created by bypassing your own enternchments.

Not the trenches. Traps in the trenches. That was what I understood from what was written involving traps in this thread.

Well yea. If your enemy prepares something specifically to meet you, wouldn't you be wary of that much more? You basically give away your intention to surprise your enemy.

They need to be deeper and larger to be effective, as I've pointed out before.

With same gabarites they would require less effort and present almost the same effect. I don't know if making it wider is more effort compared to reinforcing the sides in order to prevent collapce on itself. Depends on the soil, I guess.

Base as in their base (lower part). As I've explained, they form a ramp or mound, unless one takes time to make a foundation.

Could be good enough. Also if you want to be fancy, you can dig in wooden poles to hold it together, but that's more for actual wooden fortresses, I guess. Speaking of wich, Balut could probably build wooden fort instead of doing some wierd stuff. Again, he has the money and curiousity to try anything he wants, but it just irks me that author addresses something questionable to say the least as something smart and praiseworthy. At least there are lots of worse offenders to that case.

Calvary use normally.

That's why I specifically said "infantry" XD But I guess it's worth looking into sengoku period. Japanese are pretty, let's say, unconventional sometimes. I guess they did abandoned conventional use of shields, but it still is wierd.

Trenches would clump the enemies together and slow them down while limiting the points were it would be needed to fire. (Ballud's position indicated by the two characters seeing the trenches also helps)

Questionable clumping aspect of trenches aside, it's freaking army - it alredy is "clumped" enough.

No. Either you build them to stop the opponent or to make it more problematic for the opponent to pass through while giving you advantages.
I guess, but it sounds like very poor compromise. You create terrain, that is supposedely harden the passage for all parties involved, yet you make it passable enough compromising defencive value.
It's like building bridges which are better to transverse than crossing the river, but create choke points.

If you excuse me, posting large amount of Q&A becoming progressively harder. Probably my own fault in the first place. We could probably focus more on general points of contention instead of answering individual lines.
One of the main points in whole posts is how trenches affect army movement. My point comes to one of the answers above. Trenches cover too little actual ground on tactical scale and make terrain uneven with too little effect to affect frontline as a whole, thus giving enemy no disadvantage over just about any normal clash on mixed terrain. Defencive value as actual defence is negative due to lowground nature and obstacle presented is negligable due to little scale it has compared to forces involved.

Also, my bet remains: author will either not use this material at all or will giev Balud some crush dummy that will hit every wall and every corner to prove Balud's prowess.

 

[AlmaStock]

Those trenches will prove usefull if the enemy brings a big army with cavalry , those cavalry will be hindered and not be able to charge straight ahead like they are used to do.

Also barbed wire would make the enemy infantry fall back on their momentum , and then have to either jump across the trenches or go down , most likely down since they would be wearing armor which is heavy for a jump across the trenches.

Also archers would be hindered since they don't have a clear visial of their enemies , and balud seems to have the high ground ( obi wan would be proud ) so baluds archers have a clear advantage to pretty much shoot to the enemy troops that lag behind the ones dealing with both barbed wire and the soldiers in the trenches.

That said , if there is fire or explosives , the trenches become more of a nightmare to traverse since enemy troops would be running straight ahead to take cover in the trenches but die at the soldiers stationed in them

 

[Wadas]

@kwendy

I guess the major thing I have to explain is how I access trenches affect enemy movement.

1 - Trenches give 3 options of movement to the army that has to deal with them.

- Go up and down the trenches to not follow them
- Find a way to only go above them
- Go inside them

This is supposing they are built in a way going around them isn't an option, as that would make them to small of an obstacle and wouldn't match with either Ballud's previous actions or planning skills, nor with his current wealth.

1.1 - Go up and down the trenches to not follow them

The issue with this one is mostly the use of armor making it clunky and tiresome, with the height of the trenches being the largest offender.

Not only that, but most problems involved in just going above them would be issues here too, although it probably would have more angles to attack (still, too slowly)

1.2 - Find a way to only go above them

I imagine small makeshift bridges would be it.

Would slow enemy troops with their installation, but if they are plenty enough would allow a decent number of them to rush anyway.

Barbed wire could slow them more, but I don't think having troops (well shielded) guarding the trenches from above would do any help in this case (if they were going up and down it's another story)

The main issue for the enemy would be slowing down their pace and making sure the makeshift bridges last and don't break or need to be substituted.

I guess this would be the "best" option, although I can't access how much it would slow them or the resources they would need.

1.3 - Go inside them

I believe that's what they will end up doing, as it's the most visible due to how they are built and how it may look the least resource intensive to use pass through.

Walking through the trenches itself shouldn't be an issue by itself, although traps could make some paths more complicated and force the other kinds of movement. The issue in going through them is that while each soldier can keep the same pace, the amount that can go through a trench without clumping them too much would mean that the army itself would be way slower.

Arrows from Ballud, if well positioned and trained, could go to trenches and hurt them on the way which would be very helpful (lesser area to target). Mounted troops would also be at larger issues, being taller among others in a predetermined path (the trenches) would make them easier to target, if they would even enter trenches with horses (barbed wire and traps would probably diminish the chances of that)

Also, if they are doing it as such and only going up through more advantageous points (ramps, slides or any point were leaving is easier), flanking them in those would be easier. An to add, the other option would be them going up through disadvantageous spots, were it would be easy for a few of Ballud's troops to address them (and even if not immediate it would tire them more and force them to attack in smaller chunks) .

The final point in Ballud's favor would be the dismantling of formations more effective than in the other cases.

I think the lesser flow is the main advantage here.

2 - Well, those are my assessments.

Ballud has probably more or something else in mind, but by this being a different approach on it's own I believe there would be some weird consequences, just based on the fact that the enemy would be responding to something they've never seem before.

I believe there are advantages to them, and I'm interested in seeing how the author will play it out.

 

[kwendy]

@AlmaStock Nobody is charging fortified positions with cavalry head on, not to mention - is there even precedent of cavalry charge in this series? And if you actually station your own troops in the trenches you just dooming them to die in context of medieval warfare, so most likely trenches would be pretty unguarded and would not be at place where "momentum" holds any meaning.
@Wadas You forgot an option of collapsing trenches but whatever. From what I see passing shallow, narrow and spread out trenches would not be that much of a challenge as outside of battle you can traverse as if they aren't there (both two of your first options as seen fit at the moment) and if situation demands quick passage just wooden planks or logs would do... In fact, to deal with both wire and trenches. Unless whole area is deforested (if you think about it, Balud basically gave up the use of his land if you believe the schematics in the chapter), would not be a challenge. Considering the scale of the construction, the foremost trenches would not be guarded much, so they could be passed as they are if not for barbed wire (wich goes both ways as potential skirmishers would be stuck on it too or would need to move in such small groups so they could use trenches as intended making possible damage inflicted bare minimum... unless Balud has some supersoldiers on his side wich if I think about it is a distinct possibility).
Watching the field from the birdeye view makes it seem like flanking attacking army would also be somehow mixed in efficiency as attackers could pretty much hug the trenches to protect their flanks. Wich makes overextending much less dangerous.
Ah, I re-read the cahpter and by what Balud's leutenants saying, trenches will be garrisoned. Wich means - and is was stated explicitly - trenches indended to sacrifice troops to inconvenience the removal of barbed wire.
Basically trenches are there only to guard expencive wires.
P.S. If author will make some circumstances in wich Balund will turn out smart is not exactly what I am talking about. He has not done anything smart yet in this particular case - that is what I am talking about.

 

[SSS26032002]

Making use of terrains is a good idea but still with a world with magic it seems impracticle. It would still work nometheless as the intellect of these lords is well below that of an average man in 21st century.

 

[Hell_Satan]

Fact the Romans sometimes used trenches to secure their flanks against envelopment when they were outnumbered, as Caesar did during operations in Belgaic Gaul. In the Brittany region of France, moles and breakwaters were constructed at enormous effort to assault the estuarine strongholds of the Gauls. Internal Roman fighting between Caesar and Pompey also saw the frequent employment of trenches, counter-trenches, dug-in strong points, and other works as the contenders maneuvered against each other in field combat.[33] In the latter stages of the empire, the extensive use of such field fortifications declined as the heavy infantry itself was phased down.

 

[xXxheavymetalxXx]

All these ancient strategy talk feels like I'm back in middle school.😐

 

[welcome2atlantis]

When a women who is usually prim and proper suddenly talks dirty... it makes me wet.

 

[chusetto]

Every woman in this series is angry af

 

[SleeplessCrimson]

I see that the comment section has devolved into paragraph wars

 

[Meadweed]

They're World War Oneing this shit now?

 

[_stultus]

Hoho is she finally getting married? Or probably adopted by another family?

I don't mind balud x agatha lulz

 

[ragtime]

Man, I'm going to miss Half-Assed Scans, but I'm reading to get caught up...

 

[reu]

How the hell did he get kilometers of wire with medival tier tech?