The Stack Overflow podcast is back! Listen to an interview with our new CEO.

New answers tagged

1

If you take a look at Gdansk then you'll see that it was burn to the ground by Teutons in 1308. According to wiki it look a couple of year before new buildings and roads were build upon what was left of Gdansk. In 1340 a considerable fortress was build and in 1358 Gdansk joined the hanseatic league. In 1361 people of Gdansk rose in revolt against Teutons. ...


2

This is really a big topic. But I'll try to discuss it. I don't see any reasonable empire/kingdom going to war over a silly thing thing such as trying prove they are the best. Most, like 99% if not all, of the world's clashes/wars...etc had actual real materialistic goals. So I really doubt that either would go to war based on that reasoning. However ...


7

There are many more places in the Old World other than the stereotypical East and West. "East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet" in a 19th century idea, and a reductionist one at that. Even the Victorians knew full well that it was grossly reductionist. As regards to your specific examples: In Europe, the everyday meal was bread. ...


0

strategy is based on available resources, so almost nothing from modern warfare could be implemented. Camouflage painting maybe. But historical knowledge of military expert could give to Gary things like: - advanced fortification, both field and long-term - something like spanish tertia (offtopic - I tried to recreate it in M&B PoP, if ya know what I ...


0

The book On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society - and this video - reports that: 90% of rifles found dropped at the Battle of Gettysburg were loaded. This and other evidence indicates an innate human resistance to killing, manifesting in not shooting when they have the chance, or not aiming when they shoot. Modern armies ...


2

Gustavus Adolphus brought the concept of COMBINED ARMS to the old world. Same weapons as everybody else, but a different way to organize and train and fight that made combat more effective at the unit level. Also, sci-fi author H. Beam Piper liked using real battles in his time-travel (heh) stories. He is worth a look.


0

I am no expert but here are a few things I think modern warfare knowledge might bring: 1) A destruction of arbitrary classes Training, armor, and weapons were often distributed based on societal status. This lead to horribly trained foot-soldiers with insufficient weapons. As others have pointed out, this also resulted in very useful tools like crossbows ...


2

To take a full profit from our modern warfare knowledge, Gary would need: knowledge of the warfare theories (Sun Tzu and Clausewitz, for example), knowledge of past battles and used tactics (review of what was done, why, and what was the outcome would be profitable), knowledge of the technology/tactics and troops available to him (nice and great to know ...


3

To our modern minds, reading medieval military history can be quite puzzling as often the kings and armies involved don't behave as we'd expect them to if they were trying their hardest to "win the war" as we'd imagine they'd want to. A modern theory of warfare is to seek out the enemy on the battlefield, destroy their army, leave them defenseless, and then ...


3

There have been a lot of good answers on where modern warfare theory can help, and where the technological limitations are overbearing. Eg. Logistical, manpower and financial issues of large warhosts and prolonged military campaigns. I would like to point out the distinct differences between tactics, strategy and grand strategy. Eg. is your setting of ...


8

Modern tactics would be probably of less use than knowing historical tactics. There were a bunch of effective ideas scattered across Middle ages and early Renaissance, that work with medieval resources. Just some ideas off the top of my head: Make your peasants performing some basic training all year long, so they are more fit and skilled when the time ...


4

It seems to me reading the existing fantastic answers that in order to successfully establish any sense of modern military tactics in medieval Europe you must first shore up the shamble that is medieval economics and production. A society is built upon its lowest level and so that is where changes should be made. The vast majority of medieval populations ...


31

Lots of excellent stuff here so here is my 2 cents. One of the biggest "modern" warfare things that Lord Gary could adopt that was not very common is the concept of Meritocracy in his army. Throughout history this always seems to present an odd dichotomy, as some of the most terrifying and effective Armies in history had at least a bit of this going on. ...


96

Honestly the 'modern' military theory that would give Lord Gary the biggest advantage would be modern attitudes towards hygiene. It was extremely common in the time period you're talking about for a force to lose more troops to dysentery and other diseases than they lost in actual combat. By taking a very firm attitude towards latrine maintenance and ...


15

There are several relevant Clausewitzian, Jominian, and Machiavellian concepts that would benefit Lord Gary. While some of these seem obvious to us, recall that most wisdom seems rather obvious in retrospect. Clausewitz: War is an extension of politics, and wars have political goals. Putting 'war' in the 'politics' box doesn't reduce war, it expands the ...


0

Modern warfare requires modern weapons/tools. So... many tactics, formations and most rules do not apply because neither enemy nor they themselves do have the tools to make them useful. What would come in handy would be the modern training methods, ranking system, execution of commands/discipline and how supply chains are set up. Also, many 'modern' ideas, ...


6

I'm no expert, but here's my 2 cents. I think in terms of organization and logistics Gary would be ahead of the rest. If Gary knows modern warfare he might also know the entire history of warfare that happened after the middle ages. Gary could take inspiration from the battle of Agincourt and deploy many longbowmen in his army for example. Another thing ...


177

The question shows a misunderstanding of why the Middle Ages were medieval. It's not that the people who lived in those times did not know any better. They did. In particular, they had good Roman books about military strategy, tactics and logistics; for example, they had and they actually read Vegetius's De re militari; the book was copied over and over, and ...


2

I'm not really sure what you mean by modern warfare theory. I'm going to make the assumption that you're talking about logistics, and possibly wargaming scenarios. Logistics could be interesting. Generally, at least in European Warfare, as a soldier you provided your equipment and scavenged off the land(cheating a little with the link here - https://en....


8

would modern warfare theory be useful to Gary against his enemies? How would his medieval army, tactic, and strategy change using only resources available at the time? I am not an expert of modern warfare, but I doubt what we call modern warfare would be of any use in middle ages. Let's look at some of the key points of modern warfare Aerial supremacy and ...


7

If townspeople have all resources (lumber, tools, beasts of burden) and there are no other urgent tasks to complete (like harvest), they can erect housing for everyone as well as wooden palisade within a month. This will certainly look like town, but probably not a "worthwhile" one. Stone construction used to take much longer in medieval times and relied on ...


6

Trevor and his source are right, but I don't think it tells the whole story. Certainly London lost a great deal of population because of the fire. Many people must have died, and many more would have been displaced, a large percentage of whom likely just moved away. Why would you rebuild a whole city that could house 100k people when you only need to ...


5

According to this PDF https://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/application/files/6514/5511/5493/what-happened-great-fire-london.pdf When London burned down, it took about 50 years to rebuild. It took nearly 50 years to rebuild the burnt area of London. St Paul’s Cathedral was not completed until 1711. The city and the cathedral looked very different afterwards ...


Top 50 recent answers are included