defending itself I can understand, but what about attacking? I'd say a good amount of troops would flee at the very least... being unarmed against swords can be suicidal!!
opinions please :)
ID:265363
 Jan 28 2005, 3:56 pm
|
|
|
Jan 28 2005, 5:03 pm
|
|
Strawgate
 |
Depends on what there fighting for.. In the crusades peasants were equipted with mere shovels or pitchforks to fight for christianity(Or something I wouldn't know i'm an atheist)
|
I think they should be able to attack unarmed, but naturally their chances of winning an attack would be severely lowered, and their chances of living through the attack even less, but yes, they should still be able to fight... no matter how slim the chances of winning are :P
| |
Why would an army ever be unarmed? An army, by definition *is* armed. An unarmed group would simply be a mob. Even the most poorly equipped army will have simple hand weapons (clubs, cudgels, knives, etc.), most will use spears and similar implements.
But yes, taking the field without arms against armed combatatnts is suicidal. It's generally called a slaughter and happened when armies marched on camps. Now, if your "armies" include non-human beings with natural weapons, being "unarmed" wouldn't necesarilly be a disadvantage. | |
Attacking while unarmed should be impossible, because an army cannot wage war without weapons.
The easiest way to do this is to simply include the weapons as a precondition for when the army is created, rather than as a postcondition that is assigned to an army after it is trained. That way, you will always have an army with weapons, and if you have no weapons, you cannot create an army. | |
Spuzzum wrote:
Attacking while unarmed should be impossible, because an army cannot wage war without weapons. Oh, I dunno. If I want to send thousands of conscripted peasants to their doom, I should be able to! ;-) It really depends how complex the game is supposed to be. On one hand, a real-life army can (attempt to) fight without weapons. They won't get very far, but they can try. On the other hand, having to make sure all your armies have weapons can be tedious micromanagement, and Spuzzum's suggestion would work best. | |
Crispy wrote:
Spuzzum wrote: Well, they at least have shovels, hoes, and pitchforks. :) | |
In real life, it would depend on the situation. Extremely dedicated troops would. A much, much larger army probably would. An army probably would if the soldiers felt that they had to attack and defeat the other army, or the other army would enter there homeland and kill there families. However, the grim outlook of the battle would hurt morale, and I suspect most of the soldiers would start to doubt their generals if they were just sent into battle unarmed, which would hurt morale too.
In terms of a game, it depends on the complexity of your system, morale particularly. If morale isn't factored in at all, you might want to just not allow the combat. If it is, I'd give the attackers a massive morale penalty, enough that most armies would break apart and flee but the real fanatical would attack. The unarmed soldiers would be at a huge disadvantage, but not a totally unbeatable one, especially if they have far more troops. The soldiers would probably focus on wresting weapons from there foes' hands. And once a couple got weapons, they might be able to kill a couple enemies, which would open up more weapons for there side. The losses would be huge, but it'd be possible, I'd say. But an easier solution would probably be to assume that any army has at least rudimentary weapons. Lots of things can be turned into weapons, and I can't imagine why an army wouldn't have anything. Farm implements are usable as weapons. If the soldiers didn't think to bring those, they just need to find a forest and they can have sticks to fight with. If they sharpen the sticks, even better. A rock is a decent weapon too. And if the soldiers have any meat in there diet at all and aren't strict vegetarians the bones of the animals they eat work as a club or, if sharpened, a dagger-like implement. I'd suggest just assuming some basic weaponry for any army. Not the best weapons to be fighting with, but something. | |
Luap wrote:
The unarmed soldiers would be at a huge disadvantage, but not a totally unbeatable one, especially if they have far more troops. The soldiers would probably focus on wresting weapons from there foes' hands. And once a couple got weapons, they might be able to kill a couple enemies, which would open up more weapons for there side. The losses would be huge, but it'd be possible, I'd say. It'd be such a small chance of survival, that you'd be suicidal (and probably sacked after) if you sent troops in unarmed. Try sending a bunch of guys bare-fisted onto a row of spearmen? No chance. That said, the Russian army in the World War (1 or 2? I can't remember) had the policy of '1 gun to every 2 men- grab the rifle off the guy in front when he dies'. | |
I'm not saying that it would be a good idea, I'm just saying that it isn't impossible for the unarmed troops to edge out armed troops. 3 people with no weapons could most certainly defeat a single person with a weapon. So why couldn't 300 defeat 100? I'm not arguing that they would every time, I'm arguing that in certain situations it could happen. In fact, the unarmed troops would lose most fights. But there are fights they could win.
If the enemy is organized into a tight formation like a phalanx it would be harder. If they are spread out, you'd have a better chance because it'd be easier to engage 3 troops to their 1 and such. If they have spears and pikes it'd be harder. If they have swords and axes and maces it'd still be difficult, but at least you can get in range of throwing a good punch easier. What if your troops are well rested and there's have just gotten out of a day long battle? What if the enemy troops don't want to fight? Maybe its a civil war, and they have moral qualms with slaughtering their countrymen. And there's always the possibility that your men have been training to fight with just there hands, that would be a big help. If you snuck into their camp at night, the confusion could be enough to give you the edge. Obviously all else being equal between two armies, the one with weapons will win. My point is that if everything isn't equal, different things can happen. | |
Luap wrote:
Obviously all else being equal between two armies, the one with weapons will win. My point is that if everything isn't equal, different things can happen. Yeah, I get you now. You're right, although I'd bet on the armed guy always winning. | |
Luap wrote:
I'm not saying that it would be a good idea, I'm just saying that it isn't impossible for the unarmed troops to edge out armed troops. 3 people with no weapons could most certainly defeat a single person with a weapon. So why couldn't 300 defeat 100? When speaking of ranged weapons, it becomes a matter of volume and range. When 3 people attack one person, the ranges involved are probably only at a distance of several metres. If that person was holding a gun, for instance, he could kill/seriously wound one of the attackers before being tackled and beaten to the ground, and presumably bludgeoned to death or shot with his own weapon. But if 300 people were to attack 100 people, those 100 people would have plenty of opportunity to see those 300 people coming, and would have shot them all dead long before they come close enough to use their fists. With melee weapons, it doesn't quite apply, but there's another factor in place: all an army would need to do is take advantage of the human survival instinct and wave their weapons back and forth against the approaching enemy. The attackers would remain at bay while some would be picked off with carefully placed weapon strikes. No one, not even the most loyal soldier in existence, is willing to throw away his own life in order to allow his comrades a chance to have an advantage versus the enemy. He would only throw away his own life if it meant he was saving his comrades by doing so. | |
Yeah, I made the assumption that if we were talking about unarmed troops attacking troops with melee weapons. Since the question was if they should be able to attack, I was assuming that meant they were physically able to approach the enemy without dying.
If we're talking about melee combat, then I stand by my comment about it depending on, amongst other things, the formation of the equipped troops. If they are tightly compacted into a small area, then your strategy of waving your weapons in front of you would absolutely work. The number advantage works only if multiple people can simultaneously attack. So if the enemy troops are somewhat spread out in an area the attackers could mingle with them. Would the attackers spread out? It depends on the army. The best armies are highly disciplined and can perform well as a cohesive unit. An effective army will at the very least be able to engage in combat as a single group. But not every army is a good one. Especially if the unarmed troops attacked the armed ones and then retreated and the other side gave chase. There were a couple medieval battles where such a tactic were used: retreat and when the enemy gives chase reform. The enemy would often be unable to regroup and execute an effective attack. Of course, most times once the soldiers started fleeing it was hard to get them to stop so it usually didn't work. But if it did the confusion could let the superior numbers work their magic. Additionally, if the enemy is just standing there waving their weapons, most weapons can be knocked away with a bare arm if hit correctly. A sword can be slapped aside on the flat edge. One good punch in the face (or more effectively in the stomach or a kick to the groin) can temporarily stun an opponent. Especially with the latter pulling the weapon from your enemies grasp would be pretty easy. It would take impressive coordination (if only one person went for the attack they'd probably be taken out by the neighboring soldiers), but I don't see why it couldn't be done. It wouldn't work regularly and the unarmed soldiers would need to be a bit more skilled than the armed soldiers, but I still say it could be done. | |
Luap wrote:
Additionally, if the enemy is just standing there waving their weapons, most weapons can be knocked away with a bare arm if hit correctly. In the heat of battle, facing a solid wall of sharp weapons? With yelling, screaming combatants dying around you and a mass of fellow attackers pushing you forward? Certainly it's quite possible to deflect or One good punch in the face (or more effectively in the stomach or a kick to the groin) can temporarily stun an opponent. Good luck getting close enough! =) Especially with the latter pulling the weapon from your enemies grasp would be pretty easy. Depends on the weapon. It's quite hard to pull a sword from your enemy's hand, when your enemy is holding the hilt and you only have the sharp metallic bit to pull on! (It also depends on what kind of sword; if it's primarily a cutting weapon then you don't have a hope, unless you want to lose the use of your hand. Granted, weapons used in mass combat would more likely be stabbing weapons, but there would still be sharp edges.) A pike is easier to pull from your enemies grasp, but the enemy has the advantage of leverage; he has both hands already firmly grasping it, while you have to carefully reach around the blade (and any other nearby blades), get a firm hold, and pull. In the meantime, all your opponent has to do is (A) yank it towards him, mangling your hands with the trailing edge of the pike (proper pikes can stab forward, slice sideways, and even slice backwards; they have a blade for every occasion) or (B) stab your now-exposed chest. Pikes have a large reach, and he almost certainly wouldn't be extending it fully to begin with. It would take impressive coordination (if only one person went for the attack they'd probably be taken out by the neighboring soldiers), but I don't see why it couldn't be done. It wouldn't work regularly and the unarmed soldiers would need to be a bit more skilled than the armed soldiers, but I still say it could be done. With some unarmed soldiers sacrificing themselves, a huge numerical advantage, and very comprehensive training, yes, it could be done. But as Spuzzum pointed out, soldiers are unlikely to sacrifice themselves simply so that fellow soldiers can attack the enemy; and if we're talking about an unarmed army (mob?), then they'd pretty much have to be peasant rabble who have little or no combat training. People trained in army combat have weapons. | |
Crispy wrote:
Luap wrote: Conversly, your opponent is being pushed forward as well, and is facing a mass of people. They're less scary without weapons, but screams and yells can be disjarring irregardless of the situation. And although they might not be looking at every opponent fearing they'll kill him, they will be looking at every opponent to see what he's going to do (if he's going to lunge forward in an attack). It'd be a matter of luck, but if you made your attack at the same time your foe wasn't concentrating on you, you could very possibly push the weapon aside and get a blow in. Of course, there is the danger that even though he wasn't concentrating on you someone else was, someone who can just reach you with his weapon. Idealy the attackers would have the necessary training to react to some sort of trumpet call or whatever and attack simultaneously. Certainly it's quite possible to deflect or Once you've pushed the weapon to the side, getting close enough probably isn't too big a deal. If the enemy is waving his weapon about threateningly at me, we can probably assume it isn't extended at full length. He'd more likely be cutting and stabbing at the air ahead of him. One, maybe two lunges, would have you in punching range against many weapons. Again, this depends on the compactedness of the enemy troops. If they're multi rows, with the back rows sticking there weapons in between people to create an even more hostile wall it probably wouldn't work. But not every battle is fought in tight formation like that. Heavily sloped terrain, a fairly dense forest, an elongated formation by the enemy (perhaps to keep from being surrounde by your superior numbers or to keep your troops from getting by in the case that that would hold some greater strategic value), or as I said earlier, managing to get the enemy to chase you and then reforming as a group and meeting them before they return to an ordered formation could all give you the opportunity to get a blow in without being killed. Especially with the latter pulling the weapon from your enemies grasp would be pretty easy. A pike is easier to pull from your enemies grasp, but the enemy has the advantage of leverage; he has both hands already firmly grasping it, while you have to carefully reach around the blade (and any other nearby blades), get a firm hold, and pull. In the meantime, all your opponent has to do is (A) yank it towards him, mangling your hands with the trailing edge of the pike (proper pikes can stab forward, slice sideways, and even slice backwards; they have a blade for every occasion) or (B) stab your now-exposed chest. Pikes have a large reach, and he almost certainly wouldn't be extending it fully to begin with. In many cases after a strong blow to the stomach or groin the attacker would drop the weapon on his own without a pull from you. I agree that you have no hope of taking the weapon if the enemy is actively resisting your efforts to take it. But in real life people don't just sort of buckle a little at the knees when kicked in the groin and speak in a higher pitched voice. They almost invariably are going to at the very least fall over. The stomach is less severe, but a good hit could certainly distract them enough that a simple pull at there weapon will make it yours. If it's a sword and you have no way of pulling it from them you can try to bat it away with your arm and there's a good chance it'll go flying at that point. It would take impressive coordination (if only one person went for the attack they'd probably be taken out by the neighboring soldiers), but I don't see why it couldn't be done. It wouldn't work regularly and the unarmed soldiers would need to be a bit more skilled than the armed soldiers, but I still say it could be done. They aren't going to throw themselves onto a spear so that, say, the enemy isn't going to able to use it because there's a body attached to it, no. I agree that people won't actually kill themselves generally in a gruesome way for a strategic advantage. But I disagree that they won't make a suicidal attack for the good of the army. People went over the trenches in world war I and II and charged machineguns. A lot of the men going over the trench wall died and they knew that. The idea though, was that some would make it over, and then they could take that trench. In world war II japanese soldiers flew kamikaze missions against ships and less commonly similiar things with subs. The attack would be similiar to going over the trenches. The soldiers would know that alot of them were going to die if they simultaneously all tried to knock away their enemies weapons and attack them. But they wouldn't know who was going to die, and that helps. And I agree that the possibility of a trained army not having any sort of weapons is highly unlikely, but I assumed army implied some sort of training (an untrained unarmed army, being like you said, a mob). I'm not arguing that the unarmed army would exist in real world, I'm replying to the original post which assumed it did. Whether such an army could exist and whether such an army could win a battle against armed forces are two different questions. I just took it upon myself to venture an answer for the second. | |
They aren't going to throw themselves onto a spear so that, say, the enemy isn't going to able to use it because there's a body attached to it, no. I agree that people won't actually kill themselves generally in a gruesome way for a strategic advantage. But I disagree that they won't make a suicidal attack for the good of the army. People went over the trenches in world war I and II and charged machineguns. A lot of the men going over the trench wall died and they knew that. The idea though, was that some would make it over, and then they could take that trench. In world war II japanese soldiers flew kamikaze missions against ships and less commonly similiar things with subs. First: making a run for the enemy trenches was a tactic that was used if there stood a good chance that several people would make it to the enemy trenches. "And by golly," a soldier would think, "I'm not gonna be the one who dies today!" Second: Japanese during World War 2 had a very powerful code of honour, and a concept of the individual being mightier than the army (ironically, the IJN was for a country believing in conformism, yet whose fighters went solo; the USN was for a country believing in individualism, yet whose fighters went in teams). If your Zero was too damaged to head home, you didn't commit a suicide attack against an enemy aircraft carrier to assist your allies; you did so because striking a critical blow against the enemy by taking your own life was one of the most honourable things a warrior could do. You'll note that Japanese planes only made suicide runs if their plane was smouldering or losing fuel. In the trench case, the soldier believes that he will make it out alive, so he makes a break for it in the hopes that he won't be the one who gets hurt. He has a weapon, and he knows how to use it. In the kamikaze case, the pilot believes that he's done for anyway, so he should go out in the most honourable way possible. His glorious death will be remembered for many years by his family and homeland, so he achieves immortality by doing so. Neither of those really fits for a soldier willing to attack an enemy army without a weapon. An unarmed soldier is a dead soldier. They don't teach unarmed combat for more than a few weeks, because they know if you have to fight in unarmed combat, you're mostly screwed anyway. =) | |
One serious problem in your theory is that tactics that work at the individual level do not necesarilly translate to the regiment level. For example, one man may in fact be able to disarm a combatant in single combat. This is largely done by getting around his reach and defenses. However, a ranked regiment all but prevents that due to the men in a unit overlapping, especially with shields. So, charging one armed man results in many armed men attacking you. This is amplified with polearms where rear ranks can protect the forward ranks as well.
In ancient warfare, melee combatants *always* had a weapon and generally a shield as well. Unarmed forces were slaughtered without exception when they resisted armed forced. Even slave uprisings (the most desperate of peoples) generally occurred only when there was no organized military presence in the area and relied on mass to overwhelm the few guards (and often took many casualties in the process) and seized weaponry as fast as possible, in order to avoid being wiped out by the inevitable counter strike. In modern warfare, this divide is even more pronounce. Armed combatatnts don't even need particular organization to slaughter unarmed foes. The only chance an unarmed force really has is to sneak into the enemy's camp to seize weapons or otherwise attack when the foe is unaware. Direct attacks are never feasible. | |
Spuzzum wrote:
The attack would be similiar to going over the trenches. The soldiers would know that alot of them were going to die if they simultaneously all tried to knock away their enemies weapons and attack them. But they wouldn't know who was going to die, and that helps. And I agree that the possibility of a trained army not having any sort of weapons is highly unlikely, but I assumed army implied some sort of training (an untrained unarmed army, being like you said, a mob). I'm not arguing that the unarmed army would exist in real world, I'm replying to the original post which assumed it did. Whether such an army could exist and whether such an army could win a battle against armed forces are two different questions. I just took it upon myself to venture an answer for the second. Not quite. They often went out on missions with suicide specifically in the mission plans from the beginning; it was not just a last resort. In fact, some Japanese planes were altered so that they could not land; it was suicide or bust. Neither of those really fits for a soldier willing to attack an enemy army without a weapon. An unarmed soldier is a dead soldier. They don't teach unarmed combat for more than a few weeks, because they know if you have to fight in unarmed combat, you're mostly screwed anyway. =) I don't know about you, but I would not want to be within arm's reach of a marine if I was his enemy as it would mean death for you even if you had a knife. Just a year or two ago (I think that's all, but I have a bad sense of time) there was a fight that made its way to the news. An unarmed marine killed another marine who was wielding an axe. The one with the axe was trying to kill him but ended up being killed. Of course, that is the exception and not the rule. And also they don't expect you to use you unarmed combat training, but it is still not something to be taken lightly. | |
Loduwijk wrote:
Not quite. They often went out on missions with suicide specifically in the mission plans from the beginning; it was not just a last resort. In fact, some Japanese planes were altered so that they could not land; it was suicide or bust. Hahahaha! That's really funny. Sorry, but it is. Anyway, wouldn't there be a way to land it without crashing? Like the "Bike without brakes" dillema? Just to cruise down to an okay speed and hit water, or parachute? | |
Elation wrote:
Anyway, wouldn't there be a way to land it without crashing? Like the "Bike without brakes" dillema? It hurts hitting the water the wrong way at running speed. I would not want to hit it at 30 or 40 miles per hour. Parachute? What parachute? ;) Yes, of course you might live if you decided to make a risky landing. But that doesn't really matter, as most of them went willingly and had no intentions of aborting their missions. | |