Asian military innovations in the late Middle Ages.

[Yeferz01]

With the announcement of Rise of the Swiss, it would be my guess that there is one more DLC for medieval, dealing with the 14th and 15th centuries in Asia. I'm personally looking forward to this because the Ottomans have always been one of my favourite armies and I'm excited to use their combination of gunpowder weaponry, Janissary infantry and cavalry. Today I went down a bit of a rabbit hole looking for sources on both the Ottoman and Timurid armies, and came up with some interesting sources which I will share here.

For starters, this heavily sourced page(1) shows multiple instances of caparisoned Persianate horsemen with both lances and bows, suggesting that the 14th century saw the development of something like the fully armoured knight in Western Asia, although perhaps retaining some of their doctrinal role as horse archers. This correlates with a source which I remember reading but I'm struggling to dig up right now which stated that at the Battle of Ankara the Ottoman cavalry was outmatched by the heavier Timurid cavalry.

I also got into some research on the spread of gunpowder in Southern and Western Asia, and found that recent discoveries point to gunpowder being a factor in Indian warfare by the 15th century(2) and Khan's Historical Dictionary of Medieval India even lists the use of gunpowder rocket artillery similar to the Hwacha, as well as elephant mounted artillery in 14th century India, although from the sound of it this is somewhat controversial. Apparently, Needham also lists a reference to the use of fire lances in the Middle East in 1280, although I haven't been able to access the reference myself(3). What does seem to be certain is that the Ottomans were pioneers in the use of gunpowder weapons and were using what may have been early arquebuses by 1400. It also seems they were using field fortifications in much the same way as the factions already in game, with the Janissary corps using stakes to protect their positions at Nicopolis and Varna in a similar fashion to the English longbowmen, and wagon fortifications during their wars in Anatolia.

Anyway, this is just a bit of my slapdash research, which is really just my way of expressing my continued excitement for the future of this game and my hope that some of these things will be represented.


(1) http://warfare.ga/Gorelik-Oriental_Armour.htm
(2)“Warfare on the Deccan Plateau, 1450–1600: A Military Revolution in Early Modern India?,” Journal of World History 25, no. 1 (2014): 5.
(3)Needham, Joseph (1986), Science & Civilisation in China, vol. V:5 pt. 7: The Gunpowder Epic, Cambridge University Press, page 259

[Ray552]

Cool, thanks for the link to the article - I'm also looking forward to a Medieval DLC covering the East up to 1500 AD.

I'm not sure if that will be published before or after the final Ancients DLC (pre-1000 BC armies.)

[fogman]

Documentation is so lacking in all areas that it wouldn't be historically immersive. Exotic, certainly.

[Yeferz01]

Documentation is so lacking in all areas that it wouldn't be historically immersive. Exotic, certainly.

I think the website I linked provides strong evidence for the heavier cavalry in 14th century Persia, and the article on gunpowder is fairly convincing in arguing that cannons were used in 15th century India, but I'd agree there isn't much before that. The sad fact is that there is probably a lot of untranslated or hard to access material out there which makes getting detailed information on weapons and tactics much harder for these places than for Western Europe.

[edb1815]

Documentation is so lacking in all areas that it wouldn't be historically immersive. Exotic, certainly.

Why would you say that? Have you done some research on this topic? Maybe better to say documentation from Western sources or in Western European languages may be lacking. I would expect some of the Asian nations would have fairly well documented military history. I have several Osprey books on Japanese military history from circa 900 to 1600, that provide information on unit organization, tactics, weapons etc. In the tabletop realm players have been fielding these types of armies for years in very well historically researched games.

[SnuggleBunnies]

I would certainly argue that documentation on Medieval/Sengoku Japanese battles is better than that for say, Viking battles. I don't know about 'exotic' - that's just eye of the beholder and all that no?

[fogman]

Well, the original poster referred to southern, central and western Asia. And historical immersion for me is not about figuring out army lists for a tabletop game, which moreover are not exactly 'peer-reviewed'. It's about understanding the surrounding political and social contexts. People who, say, pick Dailami armies, do they know anything the history of the Persianate successor states to the Abbasid caliphate? How they came about? When I research a scenario and wargame in general, I'm interested as much in the context as in the battle itself, for instance:

https://www.militaryhistorywithfog.com/leuctra-371-bc
https://www.militaryhistorywithfog.com/muret-1213-ad

We know very little about Viking battles other than a mere mention in the AS Chronicle but the historical and military context is very well documented, the archaeological evidence abundant. That makes it immersive in the same way that some people enjoy fantasy wargaming with elves, orcs and dwarves because they are very knowledgeable about Tolkien's universe and have played Dungeons and Dragons.

In the West, primary sources are easily accessible in the vernacular. Point me to a translation of a medieval primary source from Central Asia, India, or even China and Japan. Who are the Polybius, Thucydides, Marcellinus, Villehardouin of the East? I'd love to learn.

[VideogameghisKhan]

For China at least, Li Jing would be the relevant medieval military writer. Portions of his writings survive in the Tongdian compendium, and an apocryphal text ascribed to him is one of the Seven Military Classics of China. I don't think you'll find a full translation, but David A. Graff did a very good comparative study of Li Jing's writings and Maurice's Strategikon, in which he does translate a number of sustained passages. https://www.amazon.com/Eurasian-Way-War ... 415460344/. And of course if you're looking for the greater historical, social, material, etc. contexts of warfare in medieval China and Japan, the amount of primary sources is immense and the number of translations into English is growing.

For Central Asia and India I don't know the sources as well. I wouldn't be too surprised to hear that Babur's entry into India is a watershed moment before which you're not going to find many detailed descriptions of warfare.

[fogman]

Thanks. I had trouble when doing a Talas scenario and ended up contextualizing it from the Arab and Sogdian side which I'm more familiar with. The problem with Chinese History (and I have read the 6 volumes of the Harvard History of Imperial China and I'm very much more acquainted with China from the Manchus onwards), is remembering the names.... Unlike in the West where History is punctuated by famous decisive battles, there doesn't seem to be a similar phenomenon at play, in either reality or historiographic emphasis.

[VideogameghisKhan]

I suppose the formatting of the official Chinese dynastic histories - terse annals, followed by more detailed biographies and treatises on selected (usually non-military) topics - doesn't lend itself well to producing an emphasis on decisive battles and campaigns. I don't think there's enough information though to produce an outline like what you're describing. Offhand, here's a try for the Tang Dynasty:

-The proceeding Sui dynasty's costly failed invasions of Korea cause economic hardship and civil disorder, leading to its collapse and the opportunity for the Tang and various other factions to carve out territory and claim power.

-Li Shimin, the future 2nd emperor of Tang, defeats the two most prominent rivals at the Battle of Hulao Pass in in 621, leading to reunification of China over the next few years.

-General Li Jing is sent against the Eastern Turkic Khaganate and destroys it in battle in 630. After a number of campaigns against the Western Turkic Khaganate, General Su Dingfang then defeats and destroys it in the Battle of Irtysh River in 657. This establishes the early dynasty's control of the perennial nomad threat.

-Concurrently, other conflicts start establishing the limits of Tang expansion. The Goguryeo- and Silla-Tang wars in Korea in the 640s-70s involve drawn-out sieges and end up benefiting Korean unification rather than Chinese expansion. A victory over an attacking army led by the founder of the Tibetan Empire in 638 leads to peace, but leaves the Tibetans in place and halts expansion to the southwest. Rather later, the far-afield scuffle with the Abbasids at Talas in 751 halts expansion to the northwest.

-The An Lushan rebellion of 755-763 nearly topples the dynasty. The Tang survive by leaning on assistance of the regional military commissioners (jiedushi), who henceforth become more akin to feudal lords. The dynasty adapts to the new reality and uses internal diplomacy and a centralized palace army to counterbalance the power of the jiedushi.

-The palace army grows weak due to corrupt mismanagement, and when it is put to the test in 881 when the rebel Huang Chao advanced on the capital it is shattered. The dynasty is saved again by allied jiedushi, but from this point on the central government has no effective military strength and it was only a matter of time before an ambitious warlord did away with the Tang in 907, kicking off the subsequent Five Dynasties period.

I think this summary is reasonable to follow and it shows how military confrontations shaped the historical arc of the dynasty. Is it really that much different from how you'd describe things for a European or Middle Eastern state?

[Yeferz01]

I think one of the interesting things in the Chinese context, and perhaps other Asian contexts as well although I'm less familiar, is that military actions seem to be more often conceptualized in terms of campaigns, rather than discreet battles. This leads to less of a focus on the kinds of tactics and weapons used, and more on issues of supply, political loyalties, drama in camp and so on. The military stuff is probaly more restricted to obscure military manuals and treatises which were less prestigious and consequently less likely to be copied down and survive. That being said, we do have military manuals, and as I posted above, we can discern some information from artworks and archaeological finds when we don't have ao many written sources.

[fogman]

It seems to me that history writing in ancient China was done by court officials who had to follow a certain canon which often was teleological in nature. Greek/Latin writers on the other hand were private individuals who emphasized their personal experience and reflections; and since the ancient world was highly militarized, any wealthy literate person was de facto a soldier, it follows that we have extremely detailed reflections on the nature and descriptions of war which was inevitably part of the political and social fabric. In medieval times, even prelates were often of the fighting type and were raised in aristocratic families where warfare was a way of life.

Great battles are really ingrained in Western education. No Englishman would be ignorant of Hastings, No Frenchman who had read Asterix, and they all had, would be ignorant of Gergovia. There is a Kortrij day in Flanders etc. What great ancient/medieval battle would be a cultural marker in China? I don't believe there are any.

[SnuggleBunnies]

What great ancient/medieval battle would be a cultural marker in China? I don't believe there are any.

For China, pop cultural markers seem especially centered around the 3 Kingdoms era - Red Cliffs etc.

For Japan, any person with a passing interest in history would know of Dan-no-Ura, the battles at Hakata, Shingen and Kenshin at Kawanakajima, the (widely misunderstood) battle of Nagashino, and the climax of the Sengoku at Sekigahara.

Source material as you say is different, but on my reading I don't think decisive battles played a lesser part in East Asian history, just that historiography (or maybe just pop culture and not so much academic history) over emphasizes them in the west. Look no further than the English speaking world's views of the Hundred Years War (Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt) vs the importance of sieges, raids, politics etc. Thucydides also is interesting - he writes about the great battles in detail, yet it's hard to read his account with a feeling that those battles were the decisive factor, as opposed to grinding attrition and who could get the Persians to give them more money (once we get to Xenophon tbf but still).

I think a bigger problem is probably translation. Scholars in the field just work in the original language. Unless there is a pop cultural or wider public interest, translation will lag. And scholars in the west are just so much more likely to work in western subjects, that there is even a severe shortage of secondary literature. We can only hope for more info to become more accessible as time passes...

[edb1815]

Well, the original poster referred to southern, central and western Asia. And historical immersion for me is not about figuring out army lists for a tabletop game, which moreover are not exactly 'peer-reviewed'. It's about understanding the surrounding political and social contexts. People who, say, pick Dailami armies, do they know anything the history of the Persianate successor states to the Abbasid caliphate? How they came about? When I research a scenario and wargame in general, I'm interested as much in the context as in the battle itself...

Fair enough. The OP did also mention Ottomans and India specifically looking at it again but frankly the discussion could apply to all non-Western military historiography.

Historical immersion is very personal obviously but in the end we are talking about a game that is primarily focused on historically based army lists for generating battles whether tabletop or PC. I would expect more "immersion" from say an RPG - "Kingdom Come Deliverance" for example. I would speculate that for the vast majority of players having the basic background provided is sufficient to provide immersion when playing the battles with a particular army.

You seem to be doubtful of RBS & his teams' research on the lists. IMO the lists are well researched, as can be seen in many discussions on this forum for example. I am not sure how practical a "peer review" of the army lists would be in a traditional sense, or whether a smaller game developer would even have the budget for something like that. You are setting a high bar. In a way many players wanting realism as you do are acting as their own peer reviewer if you will. If I were designing a scenario or campaign I would certainly do extra research for immersion and context. I do that for the tabletop miniatures scenarios I design and run.

You have raised an interesting issue about the study of pivotal battles in the West vs. Asian countries. Certainly the Japanese study decisive battles and have annual reenactments for some, Sekigahara comes first to mind, but I don't know enough about other countries.

[fogman]

I never pretended to talk for anybody else but myself. The vast majority of people playing the game only have a very cursory knowledge of history. They pick an army based on unit attributes and could not care less whether it was Dailami or Janisssary. At the same time, players are more likely to play something they are most familiar with (immersion) in terms of what is part of their cultural horizon : and China and Japan aren't it. There's a reason why ACW is huge in the US but not so in Europe. Army lists are done to fit a game system based on rock/scissor/paper principles. I don't think the authors ever claimed it was an authentic recreation of warfare over the centuries across all geographies, not to mention there are other systems to simulate warfare. The publisher of course will look at whether it will be commercially viable to fund a game on China and Japan. I'm all for diversity, but it remains for me a curiosity, in other word, exotic

[wzfcns]

As a Chinese, I am glad that there is such a lively discussion on the military and history of East Asia.
In fact there are many battles described in detail in Chinese history, but people (including Chinese scholars themselves) are just not interested in discovering them. There is a general feeling that such content is scarce because the most common historical sources are the so-called 'national histories', which are usually summaries of the history of a new dynasty in relation to a previous one. It is, for example, like the Normans writing a history of the entire Saxon dynasty. Moreover, Chinese history books are popularly 'biographical', i.e. they are divided into chapters of biography, so that a single historical event may be divided into many different chapters of characters.
In the following I will quote from an account of a battle between the Song and Jin dynasties in 1162: Battle of Maiziyuan：

Zhang (a general of the Jin dynasty) had his officer Shimo Xuliabu with 2,000 troops deployed north of the city and Xi Nile with 3,000 troops deployed on top of the hills at Mai Zi Yuan, 5 km northwest of the city. Zhang led the main force (20,000 total troops as mentioned before so here 15,000) and deployed to the west of the city.
The Song general Yao Liangfu attacked Xuliabu with 10,000 men from the northern ridge and deployed the other 90,000 troops under the hills of Mai Zi Yuan, placing the cavalry on the outer perimeter, defending with sword and shield soldiers and stake, and the infantry in the centre of the position. Between the stake were defended by warriors with polearm, and the whole army was divided into eight squares.
The Song army attacked Zhang's troops with 2,000 cavalry. When Zhang commanded his troops to defend the attack, Xi Nile sent someone to report, "The bulk of the Song army is in Mai Zi Yuan."Zhang then sent his officer, Telishiwuye, to reinforce Xuliabu with a force of 2,000 men led by Mengan Xiqingxi and Zhaosa, and 2,000 men led by Sawuchu and Chui Yin to reinforce Xi Nile.Xuliabu defeated the Song army that attacked him.
Xinile, Yilabu, Sawuchu, Cui Yin, and Pugensaqu commanded 5,000 cavalry to cover along the trenches dug by the Song, while all other troops dismounted and repulsed the Song cavalry on the outskirts first. The Jin army attacked the Song troops near the stake with long-spear and shot at the Song troops behind the stake with bows . Yao Liangfu's army was slightly repulsed and Xi Nile had his soldiers dismantle the Song army's stake to pursue them, routing seven Song squares in quick succession.Yao Liangfu counterattacked and Xi Nile retreated, when Jang defeated the Song army outside the city and came to meet Xi Nile.
Xi Nile's troops also turned back to counterattack and Yao Liangfu's army collapsed, with many falling into trenches they had dug themselves as they fled, and all the Song soldiers defending the stake were killed. The Jin army killed more than 10,000 Song soldiers and captured more than 20,000 armour, while Yao Liangfu escaped with two wounds.

This is a typical "simplified" battle recorded in the history books, but I don't think it is necessarily less detailed than the Battle of Gaugamela or some of the medieval battles.

There is also an account of the battle in the Song dynasty history books on the Song side, which mentions that the Jin army first broke through the Song third and fourth squares from the flanks, captured the supply convoys in the middle of the Song squares and blocked their movement, and then pinned the first and second squares in front from the back. General Yao Zhi led the last square to repel five Jin attacks with spears and crossbows and to cover his own retreat. There is too much for me to translate in detail.It is also stated that the actual strength of the Song army was 20,000 men, with the first four squares numbering 6,408 men。

Like I said, I don't think ancient Chinese battles have always been irreducible to the abbreviated narratives of civil officials, it's just that no one in modern times has taken the interest to collate and study them.

Are there any battles that were recorded by the people involved in the battle, or by generals or soldiers. Many. In fact after most battles the general leading the army would make a report of the battle to the court. Many reports from the Ming and Qing dynasties can be found in full. Du Yu, the author of the Tongdian mentioned earlier, was himself in command of the army (jiedushi.)

Are there any battles in China that are of the greatest significance and as well known as the Battle of Hastings? How about too many. The Battle of Hastings took place in 1066 AD, during the Song Dynasty in China. But China's dynastic era began in 220BC, and there have been so many dynastic changes, cultural changes and major battles over the long course of time.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Thank you very much for this, we are lucky to have you. This account is indeed just as detailed as many of the more in depth western battle accounts we have, and more detailed than the terse majority (king x met the army of y at z place, and defeated them with great loss thanks to the grace of God in the year XXXX. Moving on...)

[wzfcns]

Thank you very much for this, we are lucky to have you. This account is indeed just as detailed as many of the more in depth western battle accounts we have, and more detailed than the terse majority (king x met the army of y at z place, and defeated them with great loss thanks to the grace of God in the year XXXX. Moving on...)

Thanks,it just one of many battle accounts in Chinese record.What I take it from 《金史 卷六十五 列传第三　始祖以下诸子》（History Book of Jin，This is an official history book written by the imperial court of the Yuan Dynasty.)

The real problem is that modern Chinese historians（As well as history lovers, civic support is actually what matters most.） have paid little attention to these historical battles. There is a lot of European research on specific battles, historical restoration, and wargames like the FOG.

In China these are almost non-existent, and the occasional mention of battles is a passing reference. It is not that ancient Chinese civil officials ignored the records of war, but rather that modern Chinese historians ignore these records, which are submerged in a sea of historical documents.

[edb1815]

I never pretended to talk for anybody else but myself. The vast majority of people playing the game only have a very cursory knowledge of history. They pick an army based on unit attributes and could not care less whether it was Dailami or Janisssary. At the same time, players are more likely to play something they are most familiar with (immersion) in terms of what is part of their cultural horizon : and China and Japan aren't it. There's a reason why ACW is huge in the US but not so in Europe. Army lists are done to fit a game system based on rock/scissor/paper principles. I don't think the authors ever claimed it was an authentic recreation of warfare over the centuries across all geographies, not to mention there are other systems to simulate warfare. The publisher of course will look at whether it will be commercially viable to fund a game on China and Japan. I'm all for diversity, but it remains for me a curiosity, in other word, exotic

Correct I was not accusing you, rather I made that same point. I agree with your point on players knowledge, but to go further I think with a game like FOG you have a higher level of historical knowledge than the average gamer. Over 40 years of wargaming tabletop and PC I have found that in the historical wargaming community this is the case.

I never said FOG was an authentic recreation of ancient and medieval warfare. I said the army lists were well researched which goes without saying that they have to fit within the constraints of the game system. One could argue that warfare at the core is rock/paper/scissors. They have always pointed out the historic basis for including a certain unit or unit capability in a list, and again there are examples on the forum here. It is of course an added challenge that the game covers such a wide ranging time period and geography.

I was responding to your dismissal of the designers research as insufficient, which in my opinion is an unfair criticism. If you want research into the cultural and political background of a nation or force, I think to a certain extent that is beyond the scope of a tactical level game. Of course for FOG: Kingdoms I would expect more of that background for immersion.

PS - Thankfully we now have a better appreciation of the Chinese sources!

[fogman]

Wzfcn, you validate what I have been saying. Great battles as cultural markers in the West vs East (whether documentation actually exists is irrelevant since it is ignored and/or inaccessible). The other thing is, in the West, there are a multiplicity of documents: from different sources in terms of provenance (battles in the Levant for instance have Latin, Arab, Byzantine records, HYW have French and English etc.) or outlook (royal chronicles, local parish records, chancellery records, personal accounts, or even a tapestry (Bayeux)) or a very well developped archaeological methodology. Moreover the medieval landscape is still very much present in Europe and there is tremendous continuity which sustain interest from a cultural standpoint.

As for the description of the battle you graciously provided, I want to refer once more to 'immersion'. The account is detailed but I don't know who those people are, what war they are fighting, etc. You simply cannot appreciate a text without understanding its context, which is lacking, even, as you noted, for Chinese people.