Isekai Tensei Soudouki - Ch. 49 - The Suffering Secretaries

[Arcara]

Now we need Balud to invent Maxim/Gatling and six pounder

 

[22Ryu]

@botodopo With plate it wouldn't get stuck on the metal part, it might get stuck on the cloth parts but those are decorative and there is a good chance they would just rip. With mail it might get stuck depending on the type of mail and type of barbed wire.
Of course barbed wire works best with cloth and flesh so it wouldn't be that effective but most people would wear either gambeson(multi-layered cloth) or leather armor because it is much cheaper.

 

[Yanagi]

In addition to being expensive, metal armors are f*cking heavy. The types that offer more protection also limit the soldier's range of joint movement.

 

[jonsmth]

@kwendy
Walls can't prevent hand-to-hand combat either but just delay it.

The thing about trenches is that it would prevent high mobility just as walls would do, and break up infantry formations, which is very important if you're fighting with a smaller force. You could also introduce the enemy into disadvantageous terrain - a trench maze where you could lay traps for them. And with magic bombardment and the barbed wire, you could more or less force the enemy into the trenches. It's not too dissimilar from historical fortifications in castles with elaborate traps in the form of winding paths, multiple gates, arrow slits, and murder holes. However, you can't build that sort of thing in the plains and the enemy could bypass the traps if they could just destroy the walls or climb over them.

@22Ryu
I think the barbed wire was only possible because Balud is rich, but I do wonder how they manufactured it.

As for pits/moats with spike traps, what's stopping them from adding those in the trenches?

 

[kwendy]

@jonsmth Walls give you advantage in hand-to-hand combat, trenches give you disadvantage.
Trenches would reduce your mobility as much as enemy's. Making a maze is good for entertinment, not on the battlefield. I am curious: what castles have winding paths? And how do you get murder-holes on trenches?
What is the point of trenches if any other form of defence is better? Why should we admire how "clever" MC is if he does pretty dumb stuff?

 

[boag]

@Le_Doctor_Bones
Theres still 500 years of metallurgy separating the technology, specially for creating the rifling.
I would have less issues if he came up with canons than guns.

@Kisato
that would almost be acceptable since its pretty much a hand canon.

 

[SilverWold]

Someone should really do the Light Novel ughhhhh!

 

[22Ryu]

@jonsmth The wire is created nowadays is called wire drawing, which is basically just pulling a wire or a rod through a hole, go look it up on youtube it is really cool.
Here, to make out of steel or iron, they would need to forged it, i.e heat it up and hit it with a hammer and when i say " stupidly expensive" i mean REALLY stupidly expensive. Like between the coal, the iron and the highly skilled labor (for the times), it would probably cost the same as a smallish castle. And before you ask no, they couldn't use wire drawing, not only do they lack precision to do this, the iron/steel isn't pure enough

 

[jonsmth]

@kwendy
> Walls give you advantage in hand-to-hand combat, trenches give you disadvantage.
Because of high ground? Once the enemy breaks through a wall, or they climb on top of it, that's when the melee combat happens, and there will be no high ground to speak of. You could actually avoid hand-to-hand combat with trenches as you have room to fall back to, and you probably want to lure the attackers into the traps.

> Trenches would reduce your mobility as much as enemy's.
Mobility as in cavalry mobility. No one can use horses in the trenches, so the attackers will be on equal footing (literally) with the defenders. The attackers will have to navigate through the trenches same as the defenders would do, but then the attackers don't know the layout of the trench maze, so the defenders can generally move faster.

> what castles have winding paths
I visited one in Germany/Austria (I forgot where, it was some time ago) on a forested hill/mountain, but I forgot what it was called. The approach to the walls all around are on very steep slopes, and the only feasible point of attack is at the gate. Even if you do get into the gate, you will be met with something like a room with murder holes above your head, blocked by another gate. And if you do get past that, you will climb up a winding path lined with walls with crenellations and arrow slits onto yet another 2-layered gate room and so on.

> And how do you get murder-holes on trenches?
Unless there was a tower or structure above the trenches, you don't, but you can build other types of traps like dead ends into an ambush, pitfalls, etc.

> What is the point of trenches if any other form of defence is better?
Only other form of effective defense I could think of is a low wall to prevent high mobility. Tall walls will be taken down by artillery in the form of magic, and attackers on foot can just climb over it with ladders, so you still want to put defenders on top of the wall. Ever wondered why the depictions of city defense in Konosuba and Sentouin, Hakenshimasu! were done outside of the walls? The walls are useless if you can break them within a few minutes.
Also, you want to spread out your walls/trenches away from your city walls/castle. What usually happens in a siege on a town is that all the gates are shut, and now both people and food can't get in/out, and the defenders will go hungry after a few weeks. The attackers don't even have to do anything as long as they can keep their logistics working.

@22Ryu
Yeah, I don't really have an argument for the barbed wires. Only way it could have been possible is if Balud's modern teenager person knew how to make steel wires, and everything else can be summed up as "Balud is rich". Perhaps the manga skipped out the details with the tech advancements beyond the beer and the Jacquard Loom.

 

[kwendy]

@jonsmth

Once the enemy breaks through a wall, or they climb on top of it

Well good luck with that. Would you just wait until enemy just pass through wall and get on even ground?

You could actually avoid hand-to-hand combat with trenches

Enemy will be just so scared he won't attack at all? I don't think trenches work like that. Are you implying you just need your troops as life bait?

Mobility as in cavalry mobility. No one can use horses in the trenches

Cavarlry have trouble with any kind of fortification. But cavaltry can however go around entrenchment, as opposed to your own cavalry that has no role in trench warfare.

The attackers will have to navigate through the trenches

Are you implying your enemy will be some kind of AI with bad pathfinding? Why would they need to go down into trenches in the first place?

I visited one in Germany/Austria

That is not elaborate, it's castle built in a defencible position. That is where you build castles, not trenches.

you can build other types of traps like dead ends into an ambush, pitfalls

And why the hell would you need trenches in that case? Just set ambushes and pitfalls. You are just making extra work for yourself.

Only other form of effective defense I could think of is a low wall to prevent high mobility

Spikes, palicades, reduts, moats, dirt walls - that was on top of my head, I am not that knowledgable in that regard. Either way, are you suggesting people of the past were retarded? Why do you thing literally everyone built walls if they did nothing? Starting with actual fortifications now that you mention it. Couple ow weeks, you say? Well good luck getting out of there before winter comes - your troops are not immune to deceases and hunger either. You need *a lot* to support an actual army on the move. Castles and cities on the other hand prepare for that beforehand and they have plenty of room to hold out until main forces come and either pinch the attackers from two sides or make them retreat and optionally even chase and crush them. And do you know why people sieged despite this drawbacks? Because assaulting fortifications is not about "breaking the wall" (wich by the way is a work for months - not as easy as you depict it) - it takes huge toll in casualities. You can consult losses ratio on that one. And also consider that attackers usually have numbers advantage and they still take heavy losses. And now that you mention Akatsuki Natsume, you do realise he is not a historian but a parody writer? And even in his case there was a depiction of a castle siege in Konosuba where

Spoiler

demon forces were stuck before frontline outpost unable to move forward because of a threat of human champions flanking them should they decide to proceed to march towards human capital and needed to resort to Explosion magic just to wear down defenders while human forces had freedom to go on raids and take favorable engagements before retreating back into the fortress, that is - surprise - defended by castle walls.

But we were talking about field fortifications. Those were often built prior to actual battle to ensure defenders advantage even in open field. And they were built with ability to fight back in mind, not just being sitting ducks waiting for slaughter. That includes counterattacks as well. And if you indend to fall back - why would you put troops in holes in the first place.
We also see that most militaries in this particular world are armed with swords, so you can kinda anticipate the lethality of other ways of warfare. Unless they are all retarded that is - then you can do whatever you want. We yet to see magic to make much destruction and it would not matter if you are in a trench or not.

Also, you want to spread out your walls/trenches away from your city walls/castle.

Field fortifications as the name implied are built in a field. But if you build field fortifications before the castle - it defeats the purpose of the castle itself. Enemy will inevitably take your entrenchments anyway and then will have defencible position agains your own castle. Good job.

 

[Wadas]

@kwendy

Well good luck with that. Would you just wait until enemy just pass through wall and get on even ground?

I mean, how else would it be hand-to-hand combat.

Walls advantage is that your enemy has to climb it (or destroy the gates), so spikes, arrows, throwing stuff (hot oil, rocks) and bringing down the ladders are the advantage. Not hand-to-hand combat.

Enemy will be just so scared he won't attack at all? I don't think trenches work like that. Are you implying you just need your troops as life bait?

Arrows are a thing, as well as other siege weapons. Trenches a-group the enemy enough that distance weapons are better.

Add this to the fact that after a certain amount of losses most armies are likely to retreat or give up, since defeat is certain.

Cavarlry have trouble with any kind of fortification. But cavaltry can however go around entrenchment, as opposed to your own cavalry that has no role in trench warfare.

Unless you mean Through Entrenchment, that's not really of large use. It's easier to build trenches than walls around the whole thing, and trenches allow for a larger response time for your troops (it takes more time to pass through, visibility isn't blocked or on bad angles), and once they are "broken", it's still a pain to pass though (including with horses).

Are you implying your enemy will be some kind of AI with bad pathfinding? Why would they need to go down into trenches in the first place?

Because going up and down or jumping is effective in armor? Even that would be navigating (as in passing through). Walking through them, principally ill equipped, would be nightmare.

And why the hell would you need trenches in that case? Just set ambushes and pitfalls. You are just making extra work for yourself.

Because everyone jumps in visible hole of spikes. It's improbable they will go up and down through the trenches, and doing a few traps is less work than the hole thing, has a larger chance of catching them, makes them need to shift their movement and "recalculate" how to reach the other side, as well as forcing a harder path through the trenches.

Spikes, palicades, reduts, moats, dirt walls

Trenches actually take less work and resources while being a larger pain in the ass than the ones above.

A moat has to be large enough that horses can't just jump and deep enough they can't just pass through it. They could also "build bridges" (not so simple) to address it, dealing with trenches isn't that easy.

Dirt walls are easier than trenches for on foot mobility, since they aren't that uneven in levels nor have good blockage to slow the movement.

Spikes take more noticeable resources (wood) and time setting up, while also being easier to break through.

Don't know what are palicades and reduts.

Couple ow weeks, you say? Well good luck getting out of there before winter comes - your troops are not immune to deceases and hunger either. You need *a lot* to support an actual army on the move. Castles and cities on the other hand prepare for that beforehand and they have plenty of room to hold out until main forces come and either pinch the attackers from two sides or make them retreat and optionally even chase and crush them. And do you know why people sieged despite this drawbacks? Because assaulting fortifications is not about "breaking the wall"

Doing a preventive defense BEFORE engaging on a civil work that would take 4 times the effort, 8 times the execution and 16 times the resources is wise. If they attack on an unfinished wall, the wall is far more useless than the trenches.

You can't really compare trenches to walls because one is a faster maneuver, while the other is stronger. If you want to build defense to be able to respond to attack, do the fast one first, so you can't be caught of guard while building the slower one.

And they were built with ability to fight back in mind, not just being sitting ducks waiting for slaughter.

Arrows. Spikes. Siege weapons.

Just with that you can already have an advantage with trenches (since the opponents will be the ones stuck in them).

Add to the fact that you will be most likely forcing your opponent down a narrow path (good luck establishing a large path of entrance with trenches), that they will be more tired due to having to pass through them and that you will be able to have weapons that they can't carry effectively through the trenches, and it's more like they are the ducks coming to the slaughter.

But if you build field fortifications before the castle - it defeats the purpose of the castle itself

More defense? Safety? Safety if they break through? (for the castle)

Defense while building the castle (not being vulnerable)? Having more lines of defense? Forcing your opponents to use more resources and take more time? (for the field fortifications)

Enemy will inevitably take your entrenchments anyway and then will have defencible position agains your own castle. Good job.

Not really inevitable, given you can use the trenches to slow them down and cull their numbers, as well as the whole health hazards that being in the trenches would provide them.

And even them, trenches are terrible for the ones in them trying hand in hand combat (carrying spikes is a nightmare for you, while your enemy waits with theirs)

 

[Wadas]

@22Ryu I think with magic and Ballud's resources, entrenchment would be considerably faster than a small wall.

 

[Zephy07]

man, Ballud always seems to find violent women ~ LoL ~ thanks for the update

 

[kwendy]

@Wadas

I mean, how else would it be hand-to-hand combat.

I understan tou are a polite guy who will give a hand once your enemy reach you, but in those situations it's pretty normal to give them nice poke with a spear or something ferore they gain their footing. Also you don't have to challenge every single enemy to the duel: you can trap them in nattow places (wich is inevitable when attacking fortifications) you can surround and beat those who funnel in.

Arrows are a thing, as well as other siege weapons.

Good luck launching those from a trench.

Add this to the fact that after a certain amount of losses most armies are likely to retreat or give up

The enemy dug themselves mass graves? We are all gonna die, retreat!

Trenches actually take less work and resources while being a larger pain in the ass than the ones above.

Unlike any other things trenches are not helpful considering circumstances.

Unless you mean Through Entrenchment, that's not really of large use.

Sure, let your forces be surrounded, always ended up alright.

A moat has to be large enough that horses can't just jump and deep enough they can't just pass through it. They could also "build bridges" (not so simple) to address it, dealing with trenches isn't that easy.

As opposed to trenches? Really?

Because going up and down or jumping is effective in armor? Even that would be navigating (as in passing through). Walking through them, principally ill equipped, would be nightmare.

Goes both ways.

Because everyone jumps in visible hole of spikes. It's improbable they will go up and down through the trenches, and doing a few traps is less work than the hole thing, has a larger chance of catching them, makes them need to shift their movement and "recalculate" how to reach the other side, as well as forcing a harder path through the trenches.

Please rephrase, this sentence does not make lots of sense.

Dirt walls are easier than trenches for on foot mobility, since they aren't that uneven in levels nor have good blockage to slow the movement.

Enough to have terrain advantage and easyest to work with.

Spikes take more noticeable resources (wood) and time setting up, while also being easier to break through.

Take close look at them trenches Balud built. Also considering surrounding landscape wood is not a problem.

Doing a preventive defense BEFORE engaging on a civil work that would take 4 times the effort, 8 times the execution and 16 times the resources is wise. If they attack on an unfinished wall, the wall is far more useless than the trenches.

We were not talking about field fortification in that case, I only noted your misconception of castle warfare.

You can't really compare trenches to walls because one is a faster maneuver, while the other is stronger. If you want to build defense to be able to respond to attack, do the fast one first, so you can't be caught of guard while building the slower one.

Trenches speed aside, in medieval warfare you either get caught on march or you have whole time of the world in your hands. Within limits, of course.

More defense? Safety? Safety if they break through?

Castles are pretty much maximized defence value people could think of. If anything, it would make sense to make backup lines of defence - wich were usually also part of the castle. Well, if you have poorly planned of hastely constructed one, I guess additional fallback lines are in order, but makes no sense to loose your troops because of inferior line of defence. Unless you are talking of siege preparations that are part of the castle design - but those are a bit different from field fortifications we were talking about.

Arrows. Spikes. Siege weapons.
Just with that you can already have an advantage with trenches (since the opponents will be the ones stuck in them).

Again: trenches severely reduce cobmat potential of pretty much any medieval-ish military unit. In what way will enemy be stuck in there?

Not really inevitable, given you can use the trenches to slow them down and cull their numbers, as well as the whole health hazards that being in the trenches would provide them.

Are you imagining some sort of magical man-eating trenches that consume any hostile moving close enough?

 

[Wadas]

@kwendy

I understan tou are a polite guy who will give a hand once your enemy reach you

Here is a thing, you overuse mockery and ridicularization. Please be more polite.

Good luck launching those from a trench.

As you can see in the early panels, they can see the trenches from above.

I was talking about using arrows to hit them from above thanks to the advantage of being on a hill and them being either entering the trenches or navigating through them.

The enemy dug themselves mass graves? We are all gonna die, retreat

"Themselves". You're not only ridicularizing it here but also it makes no sense. The ones on the offensive are much more likely to be stuck on the trenches.

Ballud's forces have very few reasons to actually enter the trenhces.

Also, considering that Ballud's forces have a high advantage to uses arrows against those passing through the trenches, leaving the enemy to be forced to pass through them slowly while they cull their numbers with volleys of arrows is going to diminish their opponents numbers decently.

And after passing through the trenches they'd be far more tired them Ballud's forces, so the enemy would have a even larger disadvantage.

Unlike any other things trenches are not helpful considering circumstances.

They slow the opponent. (either go up and down or navigate through the winding trenches)

They tire the opponent before battle. (armor and hand weapons)

They limit the points of advance for your opponent.

They leave them more vulnerable against arrows (narrow passages)

Sure, let your forces be surrounded, always ended up alright.

It's easier to build entrenchments around than any other thing.

It's quite unlikely there would be gaps for the horses to pass after going around, at least comparing to the other constructions you could attempt.

SAs opposed to trenches? Really?

Yes. Trenches would require a lesser width and a lesser depth, principally with the barbed wire and the winding aspect.

Not to talk about having to change a water course so the moat would be considerably full.

Goes both ways.

Ballud's troops have less reasons to be on the trenches all together (allows less risky arrow volleys, makes so the opponent is already more tired due to having to pass through the trenches) and have no reason to pass through them, since their position is defensive.

They wouldn't be trying to reach the other side. If they were in the entrenchment they would rather hold ground, so they wouldn't be walking even a third as much as their opponents.

Please rephrase, this sentence does not make lots of sense.

Because everyone jumps in visible hole of spikes. => You suggested

And why the hell would you need trenches in that case? Just set ambushes and pitfalls. You are just making extra work for yourself.

.

That would not cover as much ground as trenches, and if it did it would be incredible more burdensome to build and easier to avoid than traps around an entrenchment (harder to detect)) which your opponent will have to pass through.

It's improbable Ballud's enemy's troops will go up and down through the trenches, so while they navigate them, they probably would hit traps forcing than to change their course (which you can force to be a harder one).

The surprise and disruptive elements are a larger aid them if it was just a large pitfall to pass through.

Enough to have terrain advantage and easyest to work with.

You opponent would pass over you having higher ground if they aren't tall enough or you'd need to advance into the enemy while they are transversing them to achieve higher ground.

If they lead to winding paths, than you don't really have terrain advantage as much as positions to hold.

They might be easier to work with, but they aren't as advantageous as trenches, as those tire your opponent more, force than through harder paths and slow them down far more.

Take close look at them trenches Balud built.

I require an explanation because I don't get what you're requesting me to notice.

Also considering surrounding landscape wood is not a problem.

I was considering the handling, collection and preparation of the resources.

For example, having iron veins near by would still mean mining and transporting them would be necessary.

We were not talking about field fortification in that case, I only noted your misconception of castle warfare.

It wasn't mine actually. You were responding @jonsmth.

Within limits, of course.

Yeah. It's within the limits I'm worried. Building a castle or walls would be a ton of work,resources and time, and if any scouts saw it, they'd probably arrange to try and attack before the defenses are at their best.

Castles are pretty much maximized defence value people could think of.

Yes, reason to have the castle build after doing a preemptive defense.

Ballud would have to spend too much time and resources to fortificate a castle properly, and considering him and his "enemies", it probably wouldn't be ready in time for an invasion.

If anything, the trenches are a good temporal defense which are fast/easy to build before the castle.

In what way will enemy be stuck in there?

They would be forced to navigate through them to reach Ballud's town.

Ballud's troops on the other hand, wouldn't need to reach the other side, as they are in a defensive position.

Are you imagining some sort of magical man-eating trenches that consume any hostile moving close enough?

Between facing unexpected traps, arrow volleys, and maybe well armed and positioned Ballud's troops (which I wouldn't really favor, as I prefer the volleys), Ballud's troops would be using the trenches to cull the enemy numbers.

It's not the trenches doing the killing. Just aiding in it.

 

[kwendy]

@Wadas

Here is a thing, you overuse mockery and ridicularization. Please be more polite.

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.

As you can see in the early panels, they can see the trenches from above.
I was talking about using arrows to hit them from above thanks to the advantage of being on a hill and them being either entering the trenches or navigating through them.

THe enemy has ranged weapons too. So what were trenches for? Also enemy is not obligated to move according to your pathing.

Also, considering that Ballud's forces have a high advantage to uses arrows against those passing through the trenches, leaving the enemy to be forced to pass through them slowly while they cull their numbers with volleys of arrows is going to diminish their opponents numbers decently.

I feeel like you are oversestimating the power of arrows. And enemy has arrows too. 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.

"Themselves". You're not only ridicularizing it here but also it makes no sense. The ones on the offensive are much more likely to be stuck on the trenches.
Ballud's forces have very few reasons to actually enter the trenhces.

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.

They slow the opponent. (either go up and down or navigate through the winding trenches)
They tire the opponent before battle. (armor and hand weapons)
They limit the points of advance for your opponent.
They leave them more vulnerable against arrows (narrow passages)

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

It's easier to build entrenchments around than any other thing.
It's quite unlikely there would be gaps for the horses to pass after going around, at least comparing to the other constructions you could attempt.

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

Yes. Trenches would require a lesser width and a lesser depth, principally with the barbed wire and the winding aspect.
Not to talk about having to change a water course so the moat would be considerably full.

Wich makes them marginally easier to pass with minimum preparations. Eh, you are not obligated to fill the moat. Especially if you are not digging it around permanent fortification.

Ballud's troops have less reasons to be on the trenches all together (allows less risky arrow volleys, makes so the opponent is already more tired due to having to pass through the trenches) and have no reason to pass through them, since their position is defensive.
They wouldn't be trying to reach the other side. If they were in the entrenchment they would rather hold ground, so they wouldn't be walking even a third as much as their opponents.

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

That would not cover as much ground as trenches, and if it did it would be incredible more burdensome to build and easier to avoid than traps around an entrenchment (harder to detect)) which your opponent will have to pass through.

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

You opponent would pass over you having higher ground if they aren't tall enough or you'd need to advance into the enemy while they are transversing them to achieve higher ground.
If they lead to winding paths, than you don't really have terrain advantage as much as positions to hold.
They might be easier to work with, but they aren't as advantageous as trenches, as those tire your opponent more, force than through harder paths and slow them down far more.

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.
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 require an explanation because I don't get what you're requesting me to notice.

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.

I was considering the handling, collection and preparation of the resources.

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.

It wasn't mine actually. You were responding @jonsmth.

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).

They would be forced to navigate through them to reach Ballud's town.

There is to rule by wich enemy is obligated to navigate enemy puzzles.

Between facing unexpected traps, arrow volleys, and maybe well armed and positioned Ballud's troops (which I wouldn't really favor, as I prefer the volleys), Ballud's troops would be using the trenches to cull the enemy numbers.

Between facing expected traps, making sure to return fire while covering yourself from arrows and small groups of handicapped enemies there is almost nothing scary or smart in Balud's trenches.

 

[kwendy]

@Wadas
I want to sum it up to main point. You seem to be operating on some assumptions I stand against.
1) Trenches are relatively easy to dig - they are as difficult as any other field defence.
2) You overestimate the power of long-ranged weapons - this it mainly fault of fantasy writers, but lethality of arrows in high medieval period is pretty low. Not low enough to stop using arrows, but low enough that majority of people fight close and personal. In most fantasy works on the other hand armor and even shields only serve decorative purposes wich begs the question why are those dumbasses not all use ranged weapons. That leaves logical gap I am not willing to tolerate, so I am standing on assumption arrows work like in real life.
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.

 

[Longherin]

On one hand, I'm pretty sure trenches are godawful at stopping an army when both sides use sharp pointy bits to kill each other.

...on the other, I'm pretty sure Balud's plan doesn't just stop at trenches, so...

 

[jonsmth]

@kwendy

Well good luck with that. Would you just wait until enemy just pass through wall and get on even ground?

No, but it will eventually happen in one of the sections of the walls, or when a wall or gate breaks down. Usually, the attackers would be large in number, much more than what one section of the wall, and in this case, Balud is already lacking in number.

Enemy will be just so scared he won't attack at all? I don't think trenches work like that. Are you implying you just need your troops as life bait?

No, but the defenders can run away faster than the enemy can in unfamiliar terrain with traps and ambushes.

Cavarlry have trouble with any kind of fortification. But cavaltry can however go around entrenchment, as opposed to your own cavalry that has no role in trench warfare.

You're assuming that the entrenchment doesn't cover every path of advance. It go the same for walls actually. And just like with walls, you can surround your castles and towns with trenches. Most sieges against a larger number of attackers wouldn't see any cavalry from the side of the defenders anyway. (If the attackers are small in number only when the garrison come out of the walls and fight on ground)

I feeel like you are oversestimating the power of arrows. And enemy has arrows too. 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.

Arrows can prevent the common hastily equipped foot soldier from advancing, and there tends to be a lot of them. Moats are not meant only to slow the enemy down (they barely do) but they're mostly to prevent tunneling under the walls and getting them to collapse. See undermining

Are you implying your enemy will be some kind of AI with bad pathfinding? Why would they need to go down into trenches in the first place?

AI in video games has the advantage of knowing the terrain beforehand. Yes, humans have naturally bad pathfinding especially in unfamiliar terrain. The attackers are forced to go down the trenches because that's the only way forward, and if there is enough magic/arrows coming at them from above ground, they would rather stay there than try to climb back up.

That is not elaborate, it's castle built in a defencible position. That is where you build castles, not trenches.

My point with bringing up the castle is that it takes into account that the enemy will eventually go through the main gates. It has elaborate layers of walls and gates when the advantage of a defensible position already fails. However, you can only build feasibly build mazes of stone walls in a small area and not cover an entire province much less an entire hill.

And why the hell would you need trenches in that case? Just set ambushes and pitfalls. You are just making extra work for yourself.

Ambushes work due to the advantage of terrain and/or the mistake/incompetence of the enemy commander (running after the enemy into an ambush). Advantageous terrain is far and few in between, and if you have nothing but plains, then there's no way to set up an ambush. Traps would work even better if you can force the enemy to walk into them and not just lay them out randomly over a large area; both terrain, trenches, and walls can control where the enemy goes.

Spikes, palicades, reduts, moats, dirt walls - that was on top of my head, I am not that knowledgable in that regard. Either way, are you suggesting people of the past were retarded? Why do you thing literally everyone built walls if they did nothing?

Palisades and dirt walls are still walls - vulnerable to gunpowder-cannon-equivalent magic. Moats are meant to protect stone walls from undermining. I don't know what a "redut" is and Google is also having trouble finding out what it is. What do you mean by spikes - as in pitfall traps or caltrops? With the advent of gunpowder, walls are still built but only low ones that cannons would miss but still prevent cavalry from advancing. I'm assuming Balud's world has gunpowder-equivalent "weaponry" in the form of magic.

Couple ow weeks, you say? Well good luck getting out of there before winter comes - your troops are not immune to deceases and hunger either. You need *a lot* to support an actual army on the move.

Balud's territory is at the frontier. The enemy would have no trouble setting up logistics. If Balud is holed up in a castle, what's preventing the enemy from pillaging the villages in the province? An attacking force has ways to prolong a siege while the defenders can only rely on what's in their storage. Of course, attackers wouldn't want to start their campaign late in the summer.

they have plenty of room to hold out until main forces come and either pinch the attackers from two sides or make them retreat and optionally even chase and crush them.

As if there would be any "main forces". Not many lords like the upstart Balud and are even conspiring against him. The king isn't exactly fond of him (enough that he would deploy his own men) considering that he gave him a really troublesome territory. Balud's family and allies are pretty much on the opposite side of the country.

Because assaulting fortifications is not about "breaking the wall" (wich by the way is a work for months - not as easy as you depict it

It isn't, but they can. I'm assuming that they could. My argument would fall apart if we find out that powerful magicians are not for some frontier lords to employ and deploy.

And now that you mention Akatsuki Natsume, you do realise he is not a historian but a parody writer?

I know, but I brought it up because it would have been something that was easy to relate to. I admit, I don't recall the events in Konosuba very well, but Sentouin, Hakenshimasu! depicted fighting outside the walls because the demon army can easily destroy the walls

Spoiler

and that they did with some giants

.

But we were talking about field fortifications. Those were often built prior to actual battle to ensure defenders advantage even in open field. And they were built with ability to fight back in mind, not just being sitting ducks waiting for slaughter. That includes counterattacks as well. And if you indend to fall back - why would you put troops in holes in the first place.
We also see that most militaries in this particular world are armed with swords, so you can kinda anticipate the lethality of other ways of warfare. Unless they are all retarded that is - then you can do whatever you want. We yet to see magic to make much destruction and it would not matter if you are in a trench or not.

Wouldn't the trenches offer the same options? The manga didn't depict just one line of trench, but a maze of trenches. A smaller number of defenders can fight back in the trenches at the point of a pike or a sword because the enemy's formations are broken up and funneled into the trenches. The defenders can fall back too since they are more familiar with the layout of their trenches. But yeah, the advantages of trenches over walls will fall flat if magic isn't as destructive as I think it would be.

Field fortifications as the name implied are built in a field. But if you build field fortifications before the castle - it defeats the purpose of the castle itself. Enemy will inevitably take your entrenchments anyway and then will have defencible position agains your own castle. Good job.

I never meant that they would be built near the castle. I just didn't have the word for it, but yeah, I was thinking of field fortifications. Like, really away from the castles and towns.

 

[kwendy]

@jonsmth

No, but it will eventually happen in one of the sections of the walls, or when a wall or gate breaks down. Usually, the attackers would be large in number, much more than what one section of the wall, and in this case, Balud is already lacking in number.

Firstly - even that is hard enough, and then it is still only a start of an assault with still big defender's advantage.
Also Balud is having lots of fun with form of defence least favorable for smaller numbers.

No, but the defenders can run away faster than the enemy can in unfamiliar terrain with traps and ambushes.

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.

You're assuming that the entrenchment doesn't cover every path of advance.

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.

It go the same for walls actually. And just like with walls, you can surround your castles and towns with trenches. Most sieges against a larger number of attackers wouldn't see any cavalry from the side of the defenders anyway.

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.

Arrows can prevent the common hastily equipped foot soldier from advancing, and there tends to be a lot of them.

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

Moats are not meant only to slow the enemy down (they barely do) but they're mostly to prevent tunneling under the walls and getting them to collapse. See undermining

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.

The attackers are forced to go down the trenches because that's the only way forward, and if there is enough magic/arrows coming at them from above ground, they would rather stay there than try to climb back up.

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

My point with bringing up the castle is that it takes into account that the enemy will eventually go through the main gates.

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.

Ambushes work due to the advantage of terrain and/or the mistake/incompetence of the enemy commander (running after the enemy into an ambush).

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.

Traps would work even better if you can force the enemy to walk into them and not just lay them out randomly over a large area; both terrain, trenches, and walls can control where the enemy goes.

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?

Palisades and dirt walls are still walls - vulnerable to gunpowder-cannon-equivalent magic.

We yet to see that. If you consider speculations wouldn't collapsing trenches easy with some kind of earth manipulation magic? But regardless, the abundance of swordsmen tells that equivalent of field artillety is yet to be something common in that world. Heck, with how naval battles worked, i don't thing there are lots of mages that can even properly set something on fire from a distance.

Moats are meant to protect stone walls from undermining.

Not exclusively. Moats are pretty handy all around.

I don't know what a "redut" is and Google is also having trouble finding out what it is.

I am probably mispronouncing it, I am not sure how to pronounce it in english, in french it would be redoute (cane from latin "reductus") - mostly famous in gunpowder era, but first known since 16-th century, so barely fits in late medieval setting.

What do you mean by spikes

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

With the advent of gunpowder, walls are still built but only low ones that cannons would miss but still prevent cavalry from advancing.

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.

Balud's territory is at the frontier. The enemy would have no trouble setting up logistics.

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.

If Balud is holed up in a castle, what's preventing the enemy from pillaging the villages in the province?

Definetely not trenches. Also it depends on cultural compatibility and military goals, but it's a topic for more in-depth discussion.

An attacking force has ways to prolong a siege while the defenders can only rely on what's in their storage.

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.

As if there would be any "main forces". Not many lords like the upstart Balud and are even conspiring against him. The king isn't exactly fond of him (enough that he would deploy his own men) considering that he gave him a really troublesome territory. Balud's family and allies are pretty much on the opposite side of the country.

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.

It isn't, but they can. I'm assuming that they could. My argument would fall apart if we find out that powerful magicians are not for some frontier lords to employ and deploy.

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?

Sentouin, Hakenshimasu! depicted fighting outside the walls because the demon army can easily destroy the walls

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.

Wouldn't the trenches offer the same options? The manga didn't depict just one line of trench, but a maze of trenches. A smaller number of defenders can fight back in the trenches at the point of a pike or a sword because the enemy's formations are broken up and funneled into the trenches.

Limiting the amount of your troops fighting at the same time is a great idea. Especially when you have barely any room for fighting back. Again: trenches might have been a slight inconvenience for advancing army, but they are too small of an obstacle to make a difference and they don't present any actual combat advantage. The defenders can fall back too since they are more familiar with the layout of their trenches.

But yeah, the advantages of trenches over walls will fall flat if magic isn't as destructive as I think it would be.

In the first place, trenches worked for line infantry to some extent and starting with implementation of machinegun-level firepower became commonplace. Among other reasons, because it became in games terminology "hard counter" to cavalry and mobile warfare, wich by the way prevailed even in early WW1.

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