Militia for a small town

IanMorrison · Jul 2, 2009

I'm writing a fantasy story, and I figured I'd run this past someone other than the voices in my head.

Here is my scenario: a small, self sufficient town of several thousand people is situated in an isolated fjord. The town is built along a valley between two sets of mountains, and is separated roughly into three sections: the market and primary residential section on the ennd of the valley that opens into water, a primarily agricultural segment in the middle, and a smaller yet more heavily fortified town segment on the end of the valley that faces the mountain passes.

This town is under constant threat of attack, as a race of primitive yet numerous people have been trying to wipe them off the map for the last 600 years. These attacks can range from small raids to attacks by large war bands, and occur with great frequency in the spring, summer, and fall. The only reprieve comes when the snows begin to fall and bury the mountains and passes, making traversal too difficult for attackers. While most of those attacks come up through the mountain passes and thereby are directed at the fortified segment of town, nothing is stopping the raiders from coming off the mountains or along the coastline to hit areas that are normally left unmolested. Worse yet, these attacks often have little warning, as the raiders are adept at staying hidden and the town has few resources available for extensive scouting.

The town has a professional police/defense service, and almost a forth of the population belong to a warrior culture. Military technology is mostly limited to swords, spears, and their ilk. Firearms do exist, but many of them are as old or older than 6 centuries, and ammunition is scarse. Such weapons are only brought to bear in truly desperate situations.

Nows here's what I was initially thinking: everyone in the town able to bear arms (ie, any man or woman within a certain age range without significant disabilities) would be required by law to be armed or able to quickly arm themselves during the seasons in which the town is under threat, so that they can serve as an impromptu militia. However, I'm not sure if this is at all believable, or if the situation justified it. My thinking was that the fact that an attack COULD hit anywhere at any time is a good justification for wanting everyone able to defend themselves, but I'm not sure if the threat level would warrant such a drastic measure.

How does it sound to everyone else? Completely stupid? What criteria would need to be met for such a law to seem reasonable?

Mumut · Jul 2, 2009

Sounds alright by me. On the Isle of Man (are you watching the TT races on TV?) in the old days every able-bodied man was rostered on a coastwatch system. I believe there was a heavy penalty for defaulting on your duty.

Marcus · Jul 2, 2009

even in switzerland right now everyone is required be in the researves. everyone serves at least two years active duty. Its part of their national identity. Its been that way for a few hundred years.

In case they are invaded the entire population can be mobilized in a matter of hours. Its a wonderful model.

i'll have to check the facts on this but i'm pretty sure this is essentially correct. Been a while since i read about the swiss...

Lissibith · Jul 2, 2009

Agreed. In addition to real-life models of exactly what you describe, it just plain makes sense. It'd be harder for me to suspend my disbelief if told villagers who are under attack so often would *not* be both able and allowed to arm themselves and fight.

Higgins · Jul 2, 2009

IanMorrison said:
I'm writing a fantasy story, and I figured I'd run this past someone other than the voices in my head.

Here is my scenario: a small, self sufficient town of several thousand people is situated in an isolated fjord. The town is built along a valley between two sets of mountains, and is separated roughly into three sections: the market and primary residential section on the ennd of the valley that opens into water, a primarily agricultural segment in the middle, and a smaller yet more heavily fortified town segment on the end of the valley that faces the mountain passes.

This town is under constant threat of attack, as a race of primitive yet numerous people have been trying to wipe them off the map for the last 600 years. These attacks can range from small raids to attacks by large war bands, and occur with great frequency in the spring, summer, and fall. The only reprieve comes when the snows begin to fall and bury the mountains and passes, making traversal too difficult for attackers. While most of those attacks come up through the mountain passes and thereby are directed at the fortified segment of town, nothing is stopping the raiders from coming off the mountains or along the coastline to hit areas that are normally left unmolested. Worse yet, these attacks often have little warning, as the raiders are adept at staying hidden and the town has few resources available for extensive scouting.

The town has a professional police/defense service, and almost a forth of the population belong to a warrior culture. Military technology is mostly limited to swords, spears, and their ilk. Firearms do exist, but many of them are as old or older than 6 centuries, and ammunition is scarse. Such weapons are only brought to bear in truly desperate situations.

Nows here's what I was initially thinking: everyone in the town able to bear arms (ie, any man or woman within a certain age range without significant disabilities) would be required by law to be armed or able to quickly arm themselves during the seasons in which the town is under threat, so that they can serve as an impromptu militia. However, I'm not sure if this is at all believable, or if the situation justified it. My thinking was that the fact that an attack COULD hit anywhere at any time is a good justification for wanting everyone able to defend themselves, but I'm not sure if the threat level would warrant such a drastic measure.

How does it sound to everyone else? Completely stupid? What criteria would need to be met for such a law to seem reasonable?

As an anthropologist this cultural situation seems a bit unlikely. For one thing, mobile "barbarians" usually subjugate less mobile populations without much trouble and usually while being heavily outnumbered by the immobile population. The threat would be from the sea not the land because the barbarians would be a friendly if remote empire and pirates would be nasty people with whom you have no connections.

If I were doing a story like this I would have the town in a state of shoddy unpreparedness and have it be mostly overrun and enslaved by pirates before a Few Good Mongols turned up to save the day at heroic odds of say 800 pirates to 80 Mongols. The grateful towns people would pay up for their salvation and the Mongols would pick a few choice women, all the cash and leave everyone feeling like they were lucky to have such nice barabarians for neighbors.

But, that's just me and savages like Mongols used to be my academic area of study. Pirates too, but they aren't up to savage (eg. Mongol) levels of fighting prowess and so are more interesting as an economic phenomenon rather than as spectacular warriors.

Higgins · Jul 2, 2009

Higgins said:
As an anthropologist this cultural situation seems a bit unlikely. For one thing, mobile "barbarians" usually subjugate less mobile populations without much trouble and usually while being heavily outnumbered by the immobile population. The threat would be from the sea not the land because the barbarians would be a friendly if remote empire and pirates would be nasty people with whom you have no connections.

If I were doing a story like this I would have the town in a state of shoddy unpreparedness and have it be mostly overrun and enslaved by pirates before a Few Good Mongols turned up to save the day at heroic odds of say 800 pirates to 80 Mongols. The grateful towns people would pay up for their salvation and the Mongols would pick a few choice women, all the cash and leave everyone feeling like they were lucky to have such nice barabarians for neighbors.

But, that's just me and savages like Mongols used to be my academic area of study. Pirates too, but they aren't up to savage (eg. Mongol) levels of fighting prowess and so are more interesting as an economic phenomenon rather than as spectacular warriors.

As the Mongols say (the first paragraphs of the Secret History):

There came into the world a blue-gray wolf
whose destiny was Heaven’s will.
His wife was a fallow deer.
They travelled across the inland sea
and when they were camped near the source of the Onon River
in sight of Mount Burkhan Khaldun
their first son was born, named Batachikan.

from http://www.coldsiberia.org/webdoc3.htm

And: (from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Batukhan.jpg )

Wark · Jul 2, 2009

As long as it doesn't have the Space Marines pop up it's good with me.

Vomaxx · Jul 2, 2009

It would not be enough to have a law about turning out with weapons at a moment's notice. The militia would have to meet with some regularity, receive training, be organized in units, and have officers and NCOs already appointed if it were to be of much real use other than as an armed mob that gets in the way of the real defense force. IMHO.

Lhun · Jul 2, 2009

Higgins said:
As an anthropologist this cultural situation seems a bit unlikely. For one thing, mobile "barbarians" usually subjugate less mobile populations without much trouble and usually while being heavily outnumbered by the immobile population. The threat would be from the sea not the land because the barbarians would be a friendly if remote empire and pirates would be nasty people with whom you have no connections.

Generally i agree, a situation of constant fighting locked into a stalemate for 600 years just can't happen.
Though its important to note that the barbarians only usually win. If given enough of a technological or cultural edge, the immobile city state can also subjugate the barbarians. Rome is the prime example of that.

But, that's just me and savages like Mongols used to be my academic area of study. Pirates too, but they aren't up to savage (eg. Mongol) levels of fighting prowess and so are more interesting as an economic phenomenon rather than as spectacular warriors.

That depends a lot on the kind of pirates you have. You can vey well have an indepent warrior culture that makes piracy their hobby, see the Vikings for an example. They'd easily be a match for nomadic barbarian trades. Pirates as in "bandits with boats" usually aren't of course. Though it is also quite imaginable that they are, for example the pirates might be the remnants of a different country/cultures navy which for one reason or another turned to a life of piracy.
Though imo it's a bit chafing technologically anyway, to have nomadic barbarians and pirates in the same setting. For proper piracy you need quite a lot of marine technology, while nomadic barbarians tend to get replaced by civilisation with the advance of technology.
It could still happen of course, you can (and imo should in fantasy) have different progress in various technological areas than on earth,

Higgins · Jul 2, 2009

Lhun said:
Generally i agree, a situation of constant fighting locked into a stalemate for 600 years just can't happen.
Though its important to note that the barbarians only usually win. If given enough of a technological or cultural edge, the immobile city state can also subjugate the barbarians. Rome is the prime example of that.

With Rome and the "barbarians" (ie mobile warbands) things could go either way. After all the Gauls sacked Rome in 390 BC (IIRC). Rome later did okay against the Gauls, but then the Gauls were very urbanized...and not as well against less urbanized savages beyond the Rhine and Danube. Ultimately of course both Rome and Constantinople had a lot of big problems with the Visigoths, Vandals, Huns and Avars and Slavs etc. etc. and the Mongols took Peking among other places. Anyway, it is likely that within a few years (say 5-10) the coastal people would have some kind of understanding with the inland people and that a state of raiding would not exist. More likely raiders would be some sort of pirates and they would most likely be the kind of pirates (as for thousands of years in the Mediterranian) that attacked coastal areas more than they did shipping. In which case the inland barbarians are just the sort of well-traveled warriors who would make short work of pirates.

Ariella · Jul 2, 2009

For a historical example of a militia that functioned against raiders in medieval conditions, you can look at the Anglo-Saxon fyrd.

IanMorrison · Jul 2, 2009

Higgins said:
As an anthropologist this cultural situation seems a bit unlikely. For one thing, mobile "barbarians" usually subjugate less mobile populations without much trouble and usually while being heavily outnumbered by the immobile population. The threat would be from the sea not the land because the barbarians would be a friendly if remote empire and pirates would be nasty people with whom you have no connections.

Hey Higgins, thanks for the reply!

I left out a lot of details because they weren't really relevant to the question, but this isn't a typical situation here. The history here is that the people in this town were part of a large, continent spanning empire or set of empires about 600 years ago that was running with WWI - WWII era technology plus whatever magical augumentations of that technology they could manage. That empire fell apart when a massive blight hit the world and made most of it uninhabitable, with most people unable to even survive in the blight unprotected for more than a minute. The town is built on top of one of the rare terrain features that enables people to survive in this environment.

As a consequence, piracy isn't a concern, because the logistics of staying alive in the blight for extended periods make it too dangerous and expensive to be economical.

The raiders, on the other hand, remain a constant threat. Their fighting prowess isn't so much a concern, since while their species is physically hardy and powerful, they're still making their weapons out of wood and bone. The villagers, on the other hand, are making weapons out of magically forged steel and have a backup stockpile of firearms and ammunition from back in the days where they were still capable of building those on any meaningful scale. What makes the raiders dangerous is that they're perfectly happy surviving in the same blight which is so incredibly dangerous for the townsfolk. As a result, while the races that the townsfolk draw their members from have dwindled from millions to mere thousands, the raider's species have been seeing a population explosion. To top it off, the raiders have a 6 century old axe to grind and the townsfolk have absolutely nowhere to run to... the only settlements that have survived have been either too large, too fortified, or too remote to be overrun. The saving grace is that the raiders are highly tribal and disinclined to large scale organization. If a Ghenghis Khan style leader united them with the intent of conquest or extermination, they'd be pretty friggin boned.

In fact, when these raiders start showing signs of improved combat tactics and organization at the beginning of my story, everyone has a great big panic attack.

Vomaxx said:
It would not be enough to have a law about turning out with weapons at a moment's notice. The militia would have to meet with some regularity, receive training, be organized in units, and have officers and NCOs already appointed if it were to be of much real use other than as an armed mob that gets in the way of the real defense force. IMHO.

Hmm. Okay, that sounds fair. For about a quarter of the population, this isn't much of a problem, since they've got a religion that pretty much reads like Sun Tzu's Art of War and are already inclined to do all that. The other three races are a little tougher, though.

My first thoughts are that semi regular drills would be practised regularily, and perhaps people would be trained to gather under a particular member of the full-time town guard. Combat training would be handled during those drills, though outfitting themselves and additional training would be the perogative of the individual. Presumably, this system would be useful for things other than defense... fire fighting and disaster recovery both come to mind as other uses, much like military reservists might be called in for such duties today. Maybe much of it could also be handled by having some sort of mandatory participation in the home guard within certain age groups, as well.

Higgins · Jul 2, 2009

IanMorrison said:
Hey Higgins, thanks for the reply!

I left out a lot of details because they weren't really relevant to the question, but this isn't a typical situation here. The history here is that the people in this town were part of a large, continent spanning empire or set of empires about 600 years ago that was running with WWI - WWII era technology plus whatever magical augumentations of that technology they could manage. That empire fell apart when a massive blight hit the world and made most of it uninhabitable, with most people unable to even survive in the blight unprotected for more than a minute. The town is built on top of one of the rare terrain features that enables people to survive in this environment.

As a consequence, piracy isn't a concern, because the logistics of staying alive in the blight for extended periods make it too dangerous and expensive to be economical.

The raiders, on the other hand, remain a constant threat. Their fighting prowess isn't so much a concern, since while their species is physically hardy and powerful, they're still making their weapons out of wood and bone. The villagers, on the other hand, are making weapons out of magically forged steel and have a backup stockpile of firearms and ammunition from back in the days where they were still capable of building those on any meaningful scale. What makes the raiders dangerous is that they're perfectly happy surviving in the same blight which is so incredibly dangerous for the townsfolk. As a result, while the races that the townsfolk draw their members from have dwindled from millions to mere thousands, the raider's species have been seeing a population explosion. To top it off, the raiders have a 6 century old axe to grind and the townsfolk have absolutely nowhere to run to... the only settlements that have survived have been either too large, too fortified, or too remote to be overrun. The saving grace is that the raiders are highly tribal and disinclined to large scale organization. If a Ghenghis Khan style leader united them with the intent of conquest or extermination, they'd be pretty friggin boned.

In fact, when these raiders start showing signs of improved combat tactics and organization at the beginning of my story, everyone has a great big panic attack.

I'm not sure the blight thing is really a good thing for stories of savagery. I'd be inclined to let the blight lift and let the savages plunder the town at will. 600 years is a long time to wait to pillage a town. But that's just my taste in tales of mayhem.

IanMorrison · Jul 2, 2009

Heh. It isn't a story of savagery or mayhem, so I suppose that's fair. To each their own!

The blight (and the way it has forced four previously conflicting cultures into a sociological sardine can) is a central element of the story, and these raids (and the measures taken against them) are more backstory than central theme. I'm mainly asking the question because it has a significant impact on the culture and history of the area, and I intend to use an unusually devastating raid to kick everything off with. Even with the looming threat of the primitive raiders organizing, however, there are far, far more worrying things going on in the world I've constructed.

Just as a note, these raiders consider pillaging to be a secondary consideration that gains them trophies and a few fancy metal tools. Their primary motivation is genocidal in nature. It's not that they've been forced to wait 600 years to get a decent pillage in (certainly, the more successful surprise raids have given opportunities to kill and plunder before the defenders could mobilize, and overwhelming attacks are very often visited upon travellers). Instead, they've been trying to stomp the townsfolk into fine paste for six centuries but the stubborn twits just won't DIE. The raiders lack the sophistication or organization to bring a force to bear that could overwhelm this particular group. Other towns and even small, unfortified cities have fallen to these raiders over the last six centuries, but this town is in a safe position with a heavily armed and vigilant population.

Lhun · Jul 2, 2009

Higgins said:
With Rome and the "barbarians" (ie mobile warbands) things could go either way. After all the Gauls sacked Rome in 390 BC (IIRC).

387 actually, but you probably remembered correctly it's just often erroneously stated as 390. Anyway, the Romans were defeated by the Gauls, which had however superior numbers on their side. Also, they never managed to actually breach the fortified parts of the city, they only looted the outskirts. It's a common problem for successfully growing cities that city walls get rapidly too small.
The resulting siege (including numerous failing attempts to take the capitol hill) was eventually solved via negotiations. It is not sure who would have won in the end, the Romans must have been close to running out of supplies while the gauls were most likely having troubles with diseases and also increasing difficulty of providing food for the army.
Also, this was the event that caused the romans to actually reorganize their army, the legion defeated by the gauls were using greek tactics, not the famous roman ones. And despite being beaten by the Gauls and left severly weakened the Romans managed to subdue within the next few years all the rebelling italian tribes which saw a chance.

Anyway, it is likely that within a few years (say 5-10) the coastal people would have some kind of understanding with the inland people and that a state of raiding would not exist.

I agree. Over the course of hundreds of years they should pretty much erase all major cultural differences when living that close together. Not to mention that constant raiding would have to see one side eliminated sooner or later.

More likely raiders would be some sort of pirates and they would most likely be the kind of pirates (as for thousands of years in the Mediterranian) that attacked coastal areas more than they did shipping. In which case the inland barbarians are just the sort of well-traveled warriors who would make short work of pirates.

Well as mentioned, not necessarily. Take the vikings, Saxons, Normans etc. All of them raided european costs habitually for a very long time, and they were successfull because of sheer competence as warrior despite being outnumbered. I'm not sure about the chinese examples, but the tribes who successfully attacked roman or greek cities usually had superior numbers on their side.

IanMorrison · Jul 2, 2009

Lhun said:
I agree. Over the course of hundreds of years they should pretty much erase all major cultural differences when living that close together. Not to mention that constant raiding would have to see one side eliminated sooner or later.

I don't see how that could happen in this situation. The raiders would rather see the other side dead and have plenty of cultural and religious reasons for wanting to do so. They've got no reason to cooperate if they do not want to... they've basically got free reign in any area covered by the blight (the whole damned world) and the people they're attacking can't counterattack because large scale movements in the blight are prohibitively expensive. They aren't "living close together" here at all. They're also a separate species and speak a different language.

Constant raiding is also a bit of an exaggeration: they are a constant threat, but actual attacks might only number three or four in a bad year, and would probably be on the scale of 7-12 individuals skirmishing with guards at the walls in the middle of the night. These raiders simply don't have the organization to make a meaningful attack, and most of them probably can't be arsed to go to the trouble, since they're probably more concerned about their next meal. From the town's perspective, the raiders are rarely seen monsters that have never made a significant dent in anything important, but are watched for all the same... and used in bedtime stories to frighten small children into obedience.

Militia for a small town

IanMorrison

Mumut

Well begun is half done...

Marcus

sept 5th and I'm Out

Lissibith

On target

Higgins

Higgins

Wark

Mark Brockman

Vomaxx

Lhun

New kid, be gentle!

Higgins

Ariella

...

IanMorrison

Higgins

IanMorrison

Lhun

New kid, be gentle!

IanMorrison