Medieval Warfare and Combat Implications of Superior Strength and Skin as Strong as Leather ArmorHow different would land-based medieval warfare be if it had to combat area of effect attacks?Space weaponry?“Peace through superior firepower” Why is it so effective and how to employ it in medieval fantasy times without the direct use of magic?Would a full body diamond armor and sword guarantee survival and victory against a medieval battalion?How would medieval combat differ if its arms and armour were refashioned today?How could intelligent animals defend against humans?How could a medieval army only use unarmed combat and still be effective?Medieval weapons and Armor without gunpowder [Siege machines]
Weird Power Outage in Certain Rooms- Condominium
What is the communications range of a standard Starfleet combadge?
Does the German President's apology for WWII reflect the prevailing views of the people of Germany?
Caesar cipher implementation in c++
Can I land my aircraft on the grass next to the runway at a public airport?
Hanging string lights from stone
how make a equation a little smaller
What are the benefits of the classic f-number scheme?
Size Does Matter (at least referring to bottles)
How to respond to requests to retest, in hope that the bug is gone?
What is the maximum distance you can cause damage from?
Single word for being half in this world, half in some other spooky plane of existence
Phrase/Word-pair for a variant of master-slave relationship
Is there a bulletproof way to know a file has been successfully decrypted?
Questions about go around safety
What is the last point where one can throw away fruits if one has indicated "not bringing any fruit" on the US customs form when flying to the US?
Are there concrete advantages for being proficient at social skills in a table that rewards roleplaying these interactions?
What to do if caught in a physical pentest?
How to use Rudder during takeoff in single engine propeller aircraft? e.g. Cessna 172
A robot surviving on top of a 3x3 platform
Does the sun cross other spiral arms in its movement around the galaxy's center?
What can be found in towers of Tower Bridge?
Is 忍者/忍び also used for women?
Outlining the climax made me lose interest in writing the actual story
Medieval Warfare and Combat Implications of Superior Strength and Skin as Strong as Leather Armor
How different would land-based medieval warfare be if it had to combat area of effect attacks?Space weaponry?“Peace through superior firepower” Why is it so effective and how to employ it in medieval fantasy times without the direct use of magic?Would a full body diamond armor and sword guarantee survival and victory against a medieval battalion?How would medieval combat differ if its arms and armour were refashioned today?How could intelligent animals defend against humans?How could a medieval army only use unarmed combat and still be effective?Medieval weapons and Armor without gunpowder [Siege machines]
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;
.everyonelovesstackoverflowposition:absolute;height:1px;width:1px;opacity:0;top:0;left:0;pointer-events:none;
$begingroup$
I've got a variation of 'humans' who have superior strength on average, with the top fourth of their population being comparable to 'The Mountain' from "A Song of Ice and Fire" (Roughly 8' tall and capable of killing a horse with a single punch). In addition to that, they also have a skin that effectively serves to be as effective as regular leather armor.
With those clear physical advantages, would this group be able to take a typically 'barbarian' fighting style, counting on their toughened skin to supplant for more common armor? Culturally, they would also have incentives to do so to have body tattoos that they value in display, though they do wear armor if they feel they have to.
With equivalent intellect to humans, would a race of humans like these have developed different tendencies in warfare, both amongst each other and against common humans?
The tech level is a general medieval fantasy era, though a very primitive sort of gunpowder is present, similar to the one found in medieval China.
warfare
asked Aug 11 at 22:55
TheKevinator117TheKevinator117
513 bronze badges
$endgroup$
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
I've got a variation of 'humans' who have superior strength on average, with the top fourth of their population being comparable to 'The Mountain' from "A Song of Ice and Fire" (Roughly 8' tall and capable of killing a horse with a single punch). In addition to that, they also have a skin that effectively serves to be as effective as regular leather armor.
With those clear physical advantages, would this group be able to take a typically 'barbarian' fighting style, counting on their toughened skin to supplant for more common armor? Culturally, they would also have incentives to do so to have body tattoos that they value in display, though they do wear armor if they feel they have to.
With equivalent intellect to humans, would a race of humans like these have developed different tendencies in warfare, both amongst each other and against common humans?
The tech level is a general medieval fantasy era, though a very primitive sort of gunpowder is present, similar to the one found in medieval China.
warfare
asked Aug 11 at 22:55
TheKevinator117TheKevinator117
513 bronze badges
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
Why on Earth would such a species develop along the same lines as the European civilization? The western European medieval society (and culture, and warfare) was quite unlike (as in not similar at all) with medieval Chinese society, or medieval Indian society, or medieval Persian or Arab or Turkish society. So yes, most certainly they would "have developed different tendencies in warfare", and in poetry, and in cooking, and in embroidery and in everything else.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Aug 11 at 23:02
3
$begingroup$
regular leather armor suck except boiled/hardened leather, because boiled/hardened leather type is quite tough compare to common leather except against piercing, historically there already example of barbarian strength and naked such as gauls and other tribe fighting more advance culture like rome befitting the barbarian, for tendencies of warfare its more depend on the culture or the land so need more context.
$endgroup$
– Li Jun
Aug 12 at 3:26
1
$begingroup$
How much do they eat? The size of historical armies - and hence, their tactics - had a lot to do with the ability to keep soldiers fed.
$endgroup$
– Geoffrey Brent
Aug 12 at 10:48
2
$begingroup$
Please note that leather armor was: #1. not as prevalent as most people imagine. #2. completely different from the biker jacket style "leather jerkin" most commonly found in movies and video games, and #3. almost nonexistent in the time and place most standard medieval European fantasy settings are based on.
$endgroup$
– vsz
Aug 12 at 14:42
2
$begingroup$
Interestingly, I imagine the biggest problem for this race is that if their "leather skin" is effective enough to actually matter, that would be far more biologically expensive. Combined with their size (also biologically expensive with diminishing returns), this race would probably be VERY susceptible to anything that caused a food shortage. If they haven't already harvested/hunted the land to the point that they can't sustain a minimum viable population anymore.
$endgroup$
– Tezra
Aug 12 at 19:01
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
I've got a variation of 'humans' who have superior strength on average, with the top fourth of their population being comparable to 'The Mountain' from "A Song of Ice and Fire" (Roughly 8' tall and capable of killing a horse with a single punch). In addition to that, they also have a skin that effectively serves to be as effective as regular leather armor.
With those clear physical advantages, would this group be able to take a typically 'barbarian' fighting style, counting on their toughened skin to supplant for more common armor? Culturally, they would also have incentives to do so to have body tattoos that they value in display, though they do wear armor if they feel they have to.
With equivalent intellect to humans, would a race of humans like these have developed different tendencies in warfare, both amongst each other and against common humans?
The tech level is a general medieval fantasy era, though a very primitive sort of gunpowder is present, similar to the one found in medieval China.
warfare
asked Aug 11 at 22:55
TheKevinator117TheKevinator117
513 bronze badges
$endgroup$
I've got a variation of 'humans' who have superior strength on average, with the top fourth of their population being comparable to 'The Mountain' from "A Song of Ice and Fire" (Roughly 8' tall and capable of killing a horse with a single punch). In addition to that, they also have a skin that effectively serves to be as effective as regular leather armor.
With those clear physical advantages, would this group be able to take a typically 'barbarian' fighting style, counting on their toughened skin to supplant for more common armor? Culturally, they would also have incentives to do so to have body tattoos that they value in display, though they do wear armor if they feel they have to.
With equivalent intellect to humans, would a race of humans like these have developed different tendencies in warfare, both amongst each other and against common humans?
The tech level is a general medieval fantasy era, though a very primitive sort of gunpowder is present, similar to the one found in medieval China.
warfare
warfare
asked Aug 11 at 22:55
TheKevinator117TheKevinator117
513 bronze badges
asked Aug 11 at 22:55
TheKevinator117TheKevinator117
513 bronze badges
asked Aug 11 at 22:55
TheKevinator117TheKevinator117
513 bronze badges
asked Aug 11 at 22:55
TheKevinator117TheKevinator117
513 bronze badges
asked Aug 11 at 22:55
TheKevinator117TheKevinator117
513 bronze badges
513 bronze badges
6
$begingroup$
Why on Earth would such a species develop along the same lines as the European civilization? The western European medieval society (and culture, and warfare) was quite unlike (as in not similar at all) with medieval Chinese society, or medieval Indian society, or medieval Persian or Arab or Turkish society. So yes, most certainly they would "have developed different tendencies in warfare", and in poetry, and in cooking, and in embroidery and in everything else.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Aug 11 at 23:02
3
$begingroup$
regular leather armor suck except boiled/hardened leather, because boiled/hardened leather type is quite tough compare to common leather except against piercing, historically there already example of barbarian strength and naked such as gauls and other tribe fighting more advance culture like rome befitting the barbarian, for tendencies of warfare its more depend on the culture or the land so need more context.
$endgroup$
– Li Jun
Aug 12 at 3:26
1
$begingroup$
How much do they eat? The size of historical armies - and hence, their tactics - had a lot to do with the ability to keep soldiers fed.
$endgroup$
– Geoffrey Brent
Aug 12 at 10:48
2
$begingroup$
Please note that leather armor was: #1. not as prevalent as most people imagine. #2. completely different from the biker jacket style "leather jerkin" most commonly found in movies and video games, and #3. almost nonexistent in the time and place most standard medieval European fantasy settings are based on.
$endgroup$
– vsz
Aug 12 at 14:42
2
$begingroup$
Interestingly, I imagine the biggest problem for this race is that if their "leather skin" is effective enough to actually matter, that would be far more biologically expensive. Combined with their size (also biologically expensive with diminishing returns), this race would probably be VERY susceptible to anything that caused a food shortage. If they haven't already harvested/hunted the land to the point that they can't sustain a minimum viable population anymore.
$endgroup$
– Tezra
Aug 12 at 19:01
|
show 2 more comments
6
$begingroup$
Why on Earth would such a species develop along the same lines as the European civilization? The western European medieval society (and culture, and warfare) was quite unlike (as in not similar at all) with medieval Chinese society, or medieval Indian society, or medieval Persian or Arab or Turkish society. So yes, most certainly they would "have developed different tendencies in warfare", and in poetry, and in cooking, and in embroidery and in everything else.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Aug 11 at 23:02
3
$begingroup$
regular leather armor suck except boiled/hardened leather, because boiled/hardened leather type is quite tough compare to common leather except against piercing, historically there already example of barbarian strength and naked such as gauls and other tribe fighting more advance culture like rome befitting the barbarian, for tendencies of warfare its more depend on the culture or the land so need more context.
$endgroup$
– Li Jun
Aug 12 at 3:26
1
$begingroup$
How much do they eat? The size of historical armies - and hence, their tactics - had a lot to do with the ability to keep soldiers fed.
$endgroup$
– Geoffrey Brent
Aug 12 at 10:48
2
$begingroup$
Please note that leather armor was: #1. not as prevalent as most people imagine. #2. completely different from the biker jacket style "leather jerkin" most commonly found in movies and video games, and #3. almost nonexistent in the time and place most standard medieval European fantasy settings are based on.
$endgroup$
– vsz
Aug 12 at 14:42
2
$begingroup$
Interestingly, I imagine the biggest problem for this race is that if their "leather skin" is effective enough to actually matter, that would be far more biologically expensive. Combined with their size (also biologically expensive with diminishing returns), this race would probably be VERY susceptible to anything that caused a food shortage. If they haven't already harvested/hunted the land to the point that they can't sustain a minimum viable population anymore.
$endgroup$
– Tezra
Aug 12 at 19:01
6
6
$begingroup$
Why on Earth would such a species develop along the same lines as the European civilization? The western European medieval society (and culture, and warfare) was quite unlike (as in not similar at all) with medieval Chinese society, or medieval Indian society, or medieval Persian or Arab or Turkish society. So yes, most certainly they would "have developed different tendencies in warfare", and in poetry, and in cooking, and in embroidery and in everything else.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Aug 11 at 23:02
$begingroup$
Why on Earth would such a species develop along the same lines as the European civilization? The western European medieval society (and culture, and warfare) was quite unlike (as in not similar at all) with medieval Chinese society, or medieval Indian society, or medieval Persian or Arab or Turkish society. So yes, most certainly they would "have developed different tendencies in warfare", and in poetry, and in cooking, and in embroidery and in everything else.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Aug 11 at 23:02
3
3
$begingroup$
regular leather armor suck except boiled/hardened leather, because boiled/hardened leather type is quite tough compare to common leather except against piercing, historically there already example of barbarian strength and naked such as gauls and other tribe fighting more advance culture like rome befitting the barbarian, for tendencies of warfare its more depend on the culture or the land so need more context.
$endgroup$
– Li Jun
Aug 12 at 3:26
$begingroup$
regular leather armor suck except boiled/hardened leather, because boiled/hardened leather type is quite tough compare to common leather except against piercing, historically there already example of barbarian strength and naked such as gauls and other tribe fighting more advance culture like rome befitting the barbarian, for tendencies of warfare its more depend on the culture or the land so need more context.
$endgroup$
– Li Jun
Aug 12 at 3:26
1
1
$begingroup$
How much do they eat? The size of historical armies - and hence, their tactics - had a lot to do with the ability to keep soldiers fed.
$endgroup$
– Geoffrey Brent
Aug 12 at 10:48
$begingroup$
How much do they eat? The size of historical armies - and hence, their tactics - had a lot to do with the ability to keep soldiers fed.
$endgroup$
– Geoffrey Brent
Aug 12 at 10:48
2
2
$begingroup$
Please note that leather armor was: #1. not as prevalent as most people imagine. #2. completely different from the biker jacket style "leather jerkin" most commonly found in movies and video games, and #3. almost nonexistent in the time and place most standard medieval European fantasy settings are based on.
$endgroup$
– vsz
Aug 12 at 14:42
$begingroup$
Please note that leather armor was: #1. not as prevalent as most people imagine. #2. completely different from the biker jacket style "leather jerkin" most commonly found in movies and video games, and #3. almost nonexistent in the time and place most standard medieval European fantasy settings are based on.
$endgroup$
– vsz
Aug 12 at 14:42
2
2
$begingroup$
Interestingly, I imagine the biggest problem for this race is that if their "leather skin" is effective enough to actually matter, that would be far more biologically expensive. Combined with their size (also biologically expensive with diminishing returns), this race would probably be VERY susceptible to anything that caused a food shortage. If they haven't already harvested/hunted the land to the point that they can't sustain a minimum viable population anymore.
$endgroup$
– Tezra
Aug 12 at 19:01
$begingroup$
Interestingly, I imagine the biggest problem for this race is that if their "leather skin" is effective enough to actually matter, that would be far more biologically expensive. Combined with their size (also biologically expensive with diminishing returns), this race would probably be VERY susceptible to anything that caused a food shortage. If they haven't already harvested/hunted the land to the point that they can't sustain a minimum viable population anymore.
$endgroup$
– Tezra
Aug 12 at 19:01
|
show 2 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
No.
You haven't changed the status quo. You've just taken a group of thugs and given them leather armor skin and steroids. They're stronger, yes, but strength is already an advantage in combat. There are hundreds of ancient military techniques and formations that were explicitly designed to be used against superior foes (like encircling, using ranged weapons, ambushes, forcing fights on unfamiliar terrain, etc.), so it's unrealistic to expect warfare to drastically change because the already useful parts of it got more useful for one side.
Breaking it down, leather skin isn't especially useful if you're setting this in 'traditional medieval fantasy' which means superior metal armor is present and the majority of weapons can pierce basic leather armor from metal arrowheads to pikes to swords.
The eight-foot tall bruisers are kind of an interesting concept, considering the average height of a medieval knight was around 5 1/2 feet, but you wind up with anatomical problems (unless you want to magic that stuff away, or something), logistical problems, and finally, they're giant walking targets. Literally, they'd stick out like sore thumbs among their regular brethren, and if you had them form elite heavy troops, anti-cavalry tactics like using spearwalls would efficiently shut them down.
That said, if you decided to take them a train them in the Macedonian Phalanx and equip them with twenty foot spears, then you'd be capable of wrecking any army on flat terrain. But, and here's the most important point, it wouldn't change the way war was conducted. Just tilt the balance.
answered Aug 11 at 23:10
HalfthawedHalfthawed
12.3k1 gold badge16 silver badges50 bronze badges
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Wouldn't the phalanx structure also create issues if it's a mixed army? The height difference would create problems with keeping the formation tight, and the difference in weapon length would make it difficult for the humans to participate in battle. I would personally think that(especially in a mixed army) they could make the largest impact as bowmen, with larger bows and heavier arrows they could decimate frontlines without being in range.
$endgroup$
– Bob Meijer
Aug 12 at 10:01
$begingroup$
@BobMeijer I'm sure a clever commander can think of a few ways to keep any formation(s) together without squandering the giants' advantages. Lots of ways to solve the puzzle.
$endgroup$
– user535733
Aug 12 at 11:38
3
$begingroup$
very good answer. IMO they can tilt the balance in a number of ways, but they made incredible shock troops and ambushers (if the enemy can't get into formation they superior strength may be a critical factor). Without armour, they can't endure a long fight. Furthermore, they may be able to wield longer heavier weapons and be able to draw much powerful bow.
$endgroup$
– RomainL.
Aug 12 at 11:45
1
$begingroup$
@BobMeijer Not really. Start with a standard Phalanx using normal humans (e.g. 3 rows: Shields, spears, longer spears) and then back it up with an extra half-row of giants (half as many/twice as spaced, with even longer spears!) The main difference will be that the giants can stab down more, so you might find that you need 2 shield rows in a testudo formation to cover front-and-above. But yes, the bow aspect is more important: The increased strength and bow size means you can fire arrows 25-50% further, giving a 500-600 yard range and thus pick off enemies before they can return fire.
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
Aug 12 at 13:24
$begingroup$
Not to mention given the increased height means they can fire small tree trunks from their longbows, which will be pretty demoralizing to an advancing foe, when 20-30 spears rain from the sky at a tremendous distance.
$endgroup$
– Wayne Werner
Aug 12 at 23:11
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Specifically answering the question of whether or not natural leather armor would be sufficient to allow these giants to fight shirtless a la Hollywood barbarians. No.
Almost any ranged weapon can pierce leather armor, so they'd get wrecked if they relied 100% on their skin.
If there's any particularly strong trend in history with armor, it's that soldiers wear as much armor as they can afford as long as it won't overburden or overheat them.
I assume that there would be no significant difference in the form of armor, except that the square-cube law probably means that, although their armor will be thicker than regular people's armor, it will be relatively weaker against their equally-sized opponents.
Weapons technology will probably shift a little in favor of piercing weapons as opposed to blunt or edged, and normal humans will use more polearms.
Edged weapons like swords will be less useful against people with such tough skin.
Blunt weapons are normally used because of extremely effective armor, but these giants (that pesky square-cube law) will have relatively weaker armor, which will make it harder for smiths to "beat" piercing weapons and "force" the use of blunt weapons.
Blunt weapons and shorter weapons should still be popular at all points for specialist moments like siege assaults (where you won't have room for swinging longer weapons,)
and eventually metallurgy and smithing will advance enough to make them the weapons of choice for taking on armored giants.
Polearms may be a necessity for regular people to compensate for the reach advantage of the giants.
Additionally, archery may suppress gunpowder for longer, since these giants will be able to wield immensely powerful bows. And with their proportionately weaker armor, these bows will remain effective for longer.
Heavy cavalry may be delayed since it will take much longer to breed horses in large numbers that can support the weight of these giants.
Overall, I wouldn't expect a dramatic shift, just a longer road before heavy cavalry becomes king of war and a longer road before the advances in armor technology start forcing you to switch to gunpowder.
answered Aug 12 at 19:42
JeutnargJeutnarg
3,5139 silver badges21 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I'd say that they should miss heavy cavalry phase completely - before they breed big enough horses, the people they fight against should be compelled to develop good enough guns to make heavy cavalry obsolete.
$endgroup$
– Shadow1024
Aug 13 at 7:06
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Historically, the elites who ruled over the masses of peasants wanted to be seen as something special. "Anointed by god", "blue blood", "descendants of x or z famous guy" or some other invention.
Well, our special humans here are special for real! They are something to look up to, for the common man. Like for real, because they are tall. Also stronger. Equal inteligence with humans. And faster, big size does not mean a creature is slow, think bears. They have a natural deep voice from the bigger lungs and throats that make them seem to be more manly. They are good battlefield leaders, they can lead lesser races from the front with lesser actual personal risk.
They like to practice duel while naked, and it works with that tough skinn. They do this in impress the weaker races, but also because its a lot more expensive to repair the huge armor they got.
In a real battle they always use armor and have the great strenght to effectively wield huge shields. The shields make them almost invulnerable to almost all missiles and hand weapons and can be used as battering rams. Combine this with a 5 meters long one handed pike and you have the finest heavy infantry ever.
What could be different in this society, beside the tendency of rulers to be giants ? The development of gunpowder and fire arms. This world has a bigger need for it.
A battery of several napoleonic type cannons with shrapnel and grapeshot could devastate a phalanx or shield wall of giant men.
The giants could be grenadiers. Historically grenadiers would be selected from the talles strongest men. Not a match for cannons, but deadly at close range, cities, forests, tossing grenades. But not kings of the battlefield anymore.
answered Aug 12 at 10:13
Cristi PriciuCristi Priciu
1393 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f152725%2fmedieval-warfare-and-combat-implications-of-superior-strength-and-skin-as-strong%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
No.
You haven't changed the status quo. You've just taken a group of thugs and given them leather armor skin and steroids. They're stronger, yes, but strength is already an advantage in combat. There are hundreds of ancient military techniques and formations that were explicitly designed to be used against superior foes (like encircling, using ranged weapons, ambushes, forcing fights on unfamiliar terrain, etc.), so it's unrealistic to expect warfare to drastically change because the already useful parts of it got more useful for one side.
Breaking it down, leather skin isn't especially useful if you're setting this in 'traditional medieval fantasy' which means superior metal armor is present and the majority of weapons can pierce basic leather armor from metal arrowheads to pikes to swords.
The eight-foot tall bruisers are kind of an interesting concept, considering the average height of a medieval knight was around 5 1/2 feet, but you wind up with anatomical problems (unless you want to magic that stuff away, or something), logistical problems, and finally, they're giant walking targets. Literally, they'd stick out like sore thumbs among their regular brethren, and if you had them form elite heavy troops, anti-cavalry tactics like using spearwalls would efficiently shut them down.
That said, if you decided to take them a train them in the Macedonian Phalanx and equip them with twenty foot spears, then you'd be capable of wrecking any army on flat terrain. But, and here's the most important point, it wouldn't change the way war was conducted. Just tilt the balance.
answered Aug 11 at 23:10
HalfthawedHalfthawed
12.3k1 gold badge16 silver badges50 bronze badges
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Wouldn't the phalanx structure also create issues if it's a mixed army? The height difference would create problems with keeping the formation tight, and the difference in weapon length would make it difficult for the humans to participate in battle. I would personally think that(especially in a mixed army) they could make the largest impact as bowmen, with larger bows and heavier arrows they could decimate frontlines without being in range.
$endgroup$
– Bob Meijer
Aug 12 at 10:01
$begingroup$
@BobMeijer I'm sure a clever commander can think of a few ways to keep any formation(s) together without squandering the giants' advantages. Lots of ways to solve the puzzle.
$endgroup$
– user535733
Aug 12 at 11:38
3
$begingroup$
very good answer. IMO they can tilt the balance in a number of ways, but they made incredible shock troops and ambushers (if the enemy can't get into formation they superior strength may be a critical factor). Without armour, they can't endure a long fight. Furthermore, they may be able to wield longer heavier weapons and be able to draw much powerful bow.
$endgroup$
– RomainL.
Aug 12 at 11:45
1
$begingroup$
@BobMeijer Not really. Start with a standard Phalanx using normal humans (e.g. 3 rows: Shields, spears, longer spears) and then back it up with an extra half-row of giants (half as many/twice as spaced, with even longer spears!) The main difference will be that the giants can stab down more, so you might find that you need 2 shield rows in a testudo formation to cover front-and-above. But yes, the bow aspect is more important: The increased strength and bow size means you can fire arrows 25-50% further, giving a 500-600 yard range and thus pick off enemies before they can return fire.
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
Aug 12 at 13:24
$begingroup$
Not to mention given the increased height means they can fire small tree trunks from their longbows, which will be pretty demoralizing to an advancing foe, when 20-30 spears rain from the sky at a tremendous distance.
$endgroup$
– Wayne Werner
Aug 12 at 23:11
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
No.
You haven't changed the status quo. You've just taken a group of thugs and given them leather armor skin and steroids. They're stronger, yes, but strength is already an advantage in combat. There are hundreds of ancient military techniques and formations that were explicitly designed to be used against superior foes (like encircling, using ranged weapons, ambushes, forcing fights on unfamiliar terrain, etc.), so it's unrealistic to expect warfare to drastically change because the already useful parts of it got more useful for one side.
Breaking it down, leather skin isn't especially useful if you're setting this in 'traditional medieval fantasy' which means superior metal armor is present and the majority of weapons can pierce basic leather armor from metal arrowheads to pikes to swords.
The eight-foot tall bruisers are kind of an interesting concept, considering the average height of a medieval knight was around 5 1/2 feet, but you wind up with anatomical problems (unless you want to magic that stuff away, or something), logistical problems, and finally, they're giant walking targets. Literally, they'd stick out like sore thumbs among their regular brethren, and if you had them form elite heavy troops, anti-cavalry tactics like using spearwalls would efficiently shut them down.
That said, if you decided to take them a train them in the Macedonian Phalanx and equip them with twenty foot spears, then you'd be capable of wrecking any army on flat terrain. But, and here's the most important point, it wouldn't change the way war was conducted. Just tilt the balance.
answered Aug 11 at 23:10
HalfthawedHalfthawed
12.3k1 gold badge16 silver badges50 bronze badges
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Wouldn't the phalanx structure also create issues if it's a mixed army? The height difference would create problems with keeping the formation tight, and the difference in weapon length would make it difficult for the humans to participate in battle. I would personally think that(especially in a mixed army) they could make the largest impact as bowmen, with larger bows and heavier arrows they could decimate frontlines without being in range.
$endgroup$
– Bob Meijer
Aug 12 at 10:01
$begingroup$
@BobMeijer I'm sure a clever commander can think of a few ways to keep any formation(s) together without squandering the giants' advantages. Lots of ways to solve the puzzle.
$endgroup$
– user535733
Aug 12 at 11:38
3
$begingroup$
very good answer. IMO they can tilt the balance in a number of ways, but they made incredible shock troops and ambushers (if the enemy can't get into formation they superior strength may be a critical factor). Without armour, they can't endure a long fight. Furthermore, they may be able to wield longer heavier weapons and be able to draw much powerful bow.
$endgroup$
– RomainL.
Aug 12 at 11:45
1
$begingroup$
@BobMeijer Not really. Start with a standard Phalanx using normal humans (e.g. 3 rows: Shields, spears, longer spears) and then back it up with an extra half-row of giants (half as many/twice as spaced, with even longer spears!) The main difference will be that the giants can stab down more, so you might find that you need 2 shield rows in a testudo formation to cover front-and-above. But yes, the bow aspect is more important: The increased strength and bow size means you can fire arrows 25-50% further, giving a 500-600 yard range and thus pick off enemies before they can return fire.
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
Aug 12 at 13:24
$begingroup$
Not to mention given the increased height means they can fire small tree trunks from their longbows, which will be pretty demoralizing to an advancing foe, when 20-30 spears rain from the sky at a tremendous distance.
$endgroup$
– Wayne Werner
Aug 12 at 23:11
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
No.
You haven't changed the status quo. You've just taken a group of thugs and given them leather armor skin and steroids. They're stronger, yes, but strength is already an advantage in combat. There are hundreds of ancient military techniques and formations that were explicitly designed to be used against superior foes (like encircling, using ranged weapons, ambushes, forcing fights on unfamiliar terrain, etc.), so it's unrealistic to expect warfare to drastically change because the already useful parts of it got more useful for one side.
Breaking it down, leather skin isn't especially useful if you're setting this in 'traditional medieval fantasy' which means superior metal armor is present and the majority of weapons can pierce basic leather armor from metal arrowheads to pikes to swords.
The eight-foot tall bruisers are kind of an interesting concept, considering the average height of a medieval knight was around 5 1/2 feet, but you wind up with anatomical problems (unless you want to magic that stuff away, or something), logistical problems, and finally, they're giant walking targets. Literally, they'd stick out like sore thumbs among their regular brethren, and if you had them form elite heavy troops, anti-cavalry tactics like using spearwalls would efficiently shut them down.
That said, if you decided to take them a train them in the Macedonian Phalanx and equip them with twenty foot spears, then you'd be capable of wrecking any army on flat terrain. But, and here's the most important point, it wouldn't change the way war was conducted. Just tilt the balance.
answered Aug 11 at 23:10
HalfthawedHalfthawed
12.3k1 gold badge16 silver badges50 bronze badges
$endgroup$
No.
You haven't changed the status quo. You've just taken a group of thugs and given them leather armor skin and steroids. They're stronger, yes, but strength is already an advantage in combat. There are hundreds of ancient military techniques and formations that were explicitly designed to be used against superior foes (like encircling, using ranged weapons, ambushes, forcing fights on unfamiliar terrain, etc.), so it's unrealistic to expect warfare to drastically change because the already useful parts of it got more useful for one side.
Breaking it down, leather skin isn't especially useful if you're setting this in 'traditional medieval fantasy' which means superior metal armor is present and the majority of weapons can pierce basic leather armor from metal arrowheads to pikes to swords.
The eight-foot tall bruisers are kind of an interesting concept, considering the average height of a medieval knight was around 5 1/2 feet, but you wind up with anatomical problems (unless you want to magic that stuff away, or something), logistical problems, and finally, they're giant walking targets. Literally, they'd stick out like sore thumbs among their regular brethren, and if you had them form elite heavy troops, anti-cavalry tactics like using spearwalls would efficiently shut them down.
That said, if you decided to take them a train them in the Macedonian Phalanx and equip them with twenty foot spears, then you'd be capable of wrecking any army on flat terrain. But, and here's the most important point, it wouldn't change the way war was conducted. Just tilt the balance.
answered Aug 11 at 23:10
HalfthawedHalfthawed
12.3k1 gold badge16 silver badges50 bronze badges
answered Aug 11 at 23:10
HalfthawedHalfthawed
12.3k1 gold badge16 silver badges50 bronze badges
answered Aug 11 at 23:10
HalfthawedHalfthawed
12.3k1 gold badge16 silver badges50 bronze badges
answered Aug 11 at 23:10
HalfthawedHalfthawed
12.3k1 gold badge16 silver badges50 bronze badges
12.3k1 gold badge16 silver badges50 bronze badges
3
$begingroup$
Wouldn't the phalanx structure also create issues if it's a mixed army? The height difference would create problems with keeping the formation tight, and the difference in weapon length would make it difficult for the humans to participate in battle. I would personally think that(especially in a mixed army) they could make the largest impact as bowmen, with larger bows and heavier arrows they could decimate frontlines without being in range.
$endgroup$
– Bob Meijer
Aug 12 at 10:01
$begingroup$
@BobMeijer I'm sure a clever commander can think of a few ways to keep any formation(s) together without squandering the giants' advantages. Lots of ways to solve the puzzle.
$endgroup$
– user535733
Aug 12 at 11:38
3
$begingroup$
very good answer. IMO they can tilt the balance in a number of ways, but they made incredible shock troops and ambushers (if the enemy can't get into formation they superior strength may be a critical factor). Without armour, they can't endure a long fight. Furthermore, they may be able to wield longer heavier weapons and be able to draw much powerful bow.
$endgroup$
– RomainL.
Aug 12 at 11:45
1
$begingroup$
@BobMeijer Not really. Start with a standard Phalanx using normal humans (e.g. 3 rows: Shields, spears, longer spears) and then back it up with an extra half-row of giants (half as many/twice as spaced, with even longer spears!) The main difference will be that the giants can stab down more, so you might find that you need 2 shield rows in a testudo formation to cover front-and-above. But yes, the bow aspect is more important: The increased strength and bow size means you can fire arrows 25-50% further, giving a 500-600 yard range and thus pick off enemies before they can return fire.
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
Aug 12 at 13:24
$begingroup$
Not to mention given the increased height means they can fire small tree trunks from their longbows, which will be pretty demoralizing to an advancing foe, when 20-30 spears rain from the sky at a tremendous distance.
$endgroup$
– Wayne Werner
Aug 12 at 23:11
|
show 1 more comment
3
$begingroup$
Wouldn't the phalanx structure also create issues if it's a mixed army? The height difference would create problems with keeping the formation tight, and the difference in weapon length would make it difficult for the humans to participate in battle. I would personally think that(especially in a mixed army) they could make the largest impact as bowmen, with larger bows and heavier arrows they could decimate frontlines without being in range.
$endgroup$
– Bob Meijer
Aug 12 at 10:01
$begingroup$
@BobMeijer I'm sure a clever commander can think of a few ways to keep any formation(s) together without squandering the giants' advantages. Lots of ways to solve the puzzle.
$endgroup$
– user535733
Aug 12 at 11:38
3
$begingroup$
very good answer. IMO they can tilt the balance in a number of ways, but they made incredible shock troops and ambushers (if the enemy can't get into formation they superior strength may be a critical factor). Without armour, they can't endure a long fight. Furthermore, they may be able to wield longer heavier weapons and be able to draw much powerful bow.
$endgroup$
– RomainL.
Aug 12 at 11:45
1
$begingroup$
@BobMeijer Not really. Start with a standard Phalanx using normal humans (e.g. 3 rows: Shields, spears, longer spears) and then back it up with an extra half-row of giants (half as many/twice as spaced, with even longer spears!) The main difference will be that the giants can stab down more, so you might find that you need 2 shield rows in a testudo formation to cover front-and-above. But yes, the bow aspect is more important: The increased strength and bow size means you can fire arrows 25-50% further, giving a 500-600 yard range and thus pick off enemies before they can return fire.
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
Aug 12 at 13:24
$begingroup$
Not to mention given the increased height means they can fire small tree trunks from their longbows, which will be pretty demoralizing to an advancing foe, when 20-30 spears rain from the sky at a tremendous distance.
$endgroup$
– Wayne Werner
Aug 12 at 23:11
3
3
$begingroup$
Wouldn't the phalanx structure also create issues if it's a mixed army? The height difference would create problems with keeping the formation tight, and the difference in weapon length would make it difficult for the humans to participate in battle. I would personally think that(especially in a mixed army) they could make the largest impact as bowmen, with larger bows and heavier arrows they could decimate frontlines without being in range.
$endgroup$
– Bob Meijer
Aug 12 at 10:01
$begingroup$
Wouldn't the phalanx structure also create issues if it's a mixed army? The height difference would create problems with keeping the formation tight, and the difference in weapon length would make it difficult for the humans to participate in battle. I would personally think that(especially in a mixed army) they could make the largest impact as bowmen, with larger bows and heavier arrows they could decimate frontlines without being in range.
$endgroup$
– Bob Meijer
Aug 12 at 10:01
$begingroup$
@BobMeijer I'm sure a clever commander can think of a few ways to keep any formation(s) together without squandering the giants' advantages. Lots of ways to solve the puzzle.
$endgroup$
– user535733
Aug 12 at 11:38
$begingroup$
@BobMeijer I'm sure a clever commander can think of a few ways to keep any formation(s) together without squandering the giants' advantages. Lots of ways to solve the puzzle.
$endgroup$
– user535733
Aug 12 at 11:38
3
3
$begingroup$
very good answer. IMO they can tilt the balance in a number of ways, but they made incredible shock troops and ambushers (if the enemy can't get into formation they superior strength may be a critical factor). Without armour, they can't endure a long fight. Furthermore, they may be able to wield longer heavier weapons and be able to draw much powerful bow.
$endgroup$
– RomainL.
Aug 12 at 11:45
$begingroup$
very good answer. IMO they can tilt the balance in a number of ways, but they made incredible shock troops and ambushers (if the enemy can't get into formation they superior strength may be a critical factor). Without armour, they can't endure a long fight. Furthermore, they may be able to wield longer heavier weapons and be able to draw much powerful bow.
$endgroup$
– RomainL.
Aug 12 at 11:45
1
1
$begingroup$
@BobMeijer Not really. Start with a standard Phalanx using normal humans (e.g. 3 rows: Shields, spears, longer spears) and then back it up with an extra half-row of giants (half as many/twice as spaced, with even longer spears!) The main difference will be that the giants can stab down more, so you might find that you need 2 shield rows in a testudo formation to cover front-and-above. But yes, the bow aspect is more important: The increased strength and bow size means you can fire arrows 25-50% further, giving a 500-600 yard range and thus pick off enemies before they can return fire.
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
Aug 12 at 13:24
$begingroup$
@BobMeijer Not really. Start with a standard Phalanx using normal humans (e.g. 3 rows: Shields, spears, longer spears) and then back it up with an extra half-row of giants (half as many/twice as spaced, with even longer spears!) The main difference will be that the giants can stab down more, so you might find that you need 2 shield rows in a testudo formation to cover front-and-above. But yes, the bow aspect is more important: The increased strength and bow size means you can fire arrows 25-50% further, giving a 500-600 yard range and thus pick off enemies before they can return fire.
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
Aug 12 at 13:24
$begingroup$
Not to mention given the increased height means they can fire small tree trunks from their longbows, which will be pretty demoralizing to an advancing foe, when 20-30 spears rain from the sky at a tremendous distance.
$endgroup$
– Wayne Werner
Aug 12 at 23:11
$begingroup$
Not to mention given the increased height means they can fire small tree trunks from their longbows, which will be pretty demoralizing to an advancing foe, when 20-30 spears rain from the sky at a tremendous distance.
$endgroup$
– Wayne Werner
Aug 12 at 23:11
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Specifically answering the question of whether or not natural leather armor would be sufficient to allow these giants to fight shirtless a la Hollywood barbarians. No.
Almost any ranged weapon can pierce leather armor, so they'd get wrecked if they relied 100% on their skin.
If there's any particularly strong trend in history with armor, it's that soldiers wear as much armor as they can afford as long as it won't overburden or overheat them.
I assume that there would be no significant difference in the form of armor, except that the square-cube law probably means that, although their armor will be thicker than regular people's armor, it will be relatively weaker against their equally-sized opponents.
Weapons technology will probably shift a little in favor of piercing weapons as opposed to blunt or edged, and normal humans will use more polearms.
Edged weapons like swords will be less useful against people with such tough skin.
Blunt weapons are normally used because of extremely effective armor, but these giants (that pesky square-cube law) will have relatively weaker armor, which will make it harder for smiths to "beat" piercing weapons and "force" the use of blunt weapons.
Blunt weapons and shorter weapons should still be popular at all points for specialist moments like siege assaults (where you won't have room for swinging longer weapons,)
and eventually metallurgy and smithing will advance enough to make them the weapons of choice for taking on armored giants.
Polearms may be a necessity for regular people to compensate for the reach advantage of the giants.
Additionally, archery may suppress gunpowder for longer, since these giants will be able to wield immensely powerful bows. And with their proportionately weaker armor, these bows will remain effective for longer.
Heavy cavalry may be delayed since it will take much longer to breed horses in large numbers that can support the weight of these giants.
Overall, I wouldn't expect a dramatic shift, just a longer road before heavy cavalry becomes king of war and a longer road before the advances in armor technology start forcing you to switch to gunpowder.
answered Aug 12 at 19:42
JeutnargJeutnarg
3,5139 silver badges21 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I'd say that they should miss heavy cavalry phase completely - before they breed big enough horses, the people they fight against should be compelled to develop good enough guns to make heavy cavalry obsolete.
$endgroup$
– Shadow1024
Aug 13 at 7:06
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Specifically answering the question of whether or not natural leather armor would be sufficient to allow these giants to fight shirtless a la Hollywood barbarians. No.
Almost any ranged weapon can pierce leather armor, so they'd get wrecked if they relied 100% on their skin.
If there's any particularly strong trend in history with armor, it's that soldiers wear as much armor as they can afford as long as it won't overburden or overheat them.
I assume that there would be no significant difference in the form of armor, except that the square-cube law probably means that, although their armor will be thicker than regular people's armor, it will be relatively weaker against their equally-sized opponents.
Weapons technology will probably shift a little in favor of piercing weapons as opposed to blunt or edged, and normal humans will use more polearms.
Edged weapons like swords will be less useful against people with such tough skin.
Blunt weapons are normally used because of extremely effective armor, but these giants (that pesky square-cube law) will have relatively weaker armor, which will make it harder for smiths to "beat" piercing weapons and "force" the use of blunt weapons.
Blunt weapons and shorter weapons should still be popular at all points for specialist moments like siege assaults (where you won't have room for swinging longer weapons,)
and eventually metallurgy and smithing will advance enough to make them the weapons of choice for taking on armored giants.
Polearms may be a necessity for regular people to compensate for the reach advantage of the giants.
Additionally, archery may suppress gunpowder for longer, since these giants will be able to wield immensely powerful bows. And with their proportionately weaker armor, these bows will remain effective for longer.
Heavy cavalry may be delayed since it will take much longer to breed horses in large numbers that can support the weight of these giants.
Overall, I wouldn't expect a dramatic shift, just a longer road before heavy cavalry becomes king of war and a longer road before the advances in armor technology start forcing you to switch to gunpowder.
answered Aug 12 at 19:42
JeutnargJeutnarg
3,5139 silver badges21 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I'd say that they should miss heavy cavalry phase completely - before they breed big enough horses, the people they fight against should be compelled to develop good enough guns to make heavy cavalry obsolete.
$endgroup$
– Shadow1024
Aug 13 at 7:06
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Specifically answering the question of whether or not natural leather armor would be sufficient to allow these giants to fight shirtless a la Hollywood barbarians. No.
Almost any ranged weapon can pierce leather armor, so they'd get wrecked if they relied 100% on their skin.
If there's any particularly strong trend in history with armor, it's that soldiers wear as much armor as they can afford as long as it won't overburden or overheat them.
I assume that there would be no significant difference in the form of armor, except that the square-cube law probably means that, although their armor will be thicker than regular people's armor, it will be relatively weaker against their equally-sized opponents.
Weapons technology will probably shift a little in favor of piercing weapons as opposed to blunt or edged, and normal humans will use more polearms.
Edged weapons like swords will be less useful against people with such tough skin.
Blunt weapons are normally used because of extremely effective armor, but these giants (that pesky square-cube law) will have relatively weaker armor, which will make it harder for smiths to "beat" piercing weapons and "force" the use of blunt weapons.
Blunt weapons and shorter weapons should still be popular at all points for specialist moments like siege assaults (where you won't have room for swinging longer weapons,)
and eventually metallurgy and smithing will advance enough to make them the weapons of choice for taking on armored giants.
Polearms may be a necessity for regular people to compensate for the reach advantage of the giants.
Additionally, archery may suppress gunpowder for longer, since these giants will be able to wield immensely powerful bows. And with their proportionately weaker armor, these bows will remain effective for longer.
Heavy cavalry may be delayed since it will take much longer to breed horses in large numbers that can support the weight of these giants.
Overall, I wouldn't expect a dramatic shift, just a longer road before heavy cavalry becomes king of war and a longer road before the advances in armor technology start forcing you to switch to gunpowder.
answered Aug 12 at 19:42
JeutnargJeutnarg
3,5139 silver badges21 bronze badges
$endgroup$
Specifically answering the question of whether or not natural leather armor would be sufficient to allow these giants to fight shirtless a la Hollywood barbarians. No.
Almost any ranged weapon can pierce leather armor, so they'd get wrecked if they relied 100% on their skin.
If there's any particularly strong trend in history with armor, it's that soldiers wear as much armor as they can afford as long as it won't overburden or overheat them.
I assume that there would be no significant difference in the form of armor, except that the square-cube law probably means that, although their armor will be thicker than regular people's armor, it will be relatively weaker against their equally-sized opponents.
Weapons technology will probably shift a little in favor of piercing weapons as opposed to blunt or edged, and normal humans will use more polearms.
Edged weapons like swords will be less useful against people with such tough skin.
Blunt weapons are normally used because of extremely effective armor, but these giants (that pesky square-cube law) will have relatively weaker armor, which will make it harder for smiths to "beat" piercing weapons and "force" the use of blunt weapons.
Blunt weapons and shorter weapons should still be popular at all points for specialist moments like siege assaults (where you won't have room for swinging longer weapons,)
and eventually metallurgy and smithing will advance enough to make them the weapons of choice for taking on armored giants.
Polearms may be a necessity for regular people to compensate for the reach advantage of the giants.
Additionally, archery may suppress gunpowder for longer, since these giants will be able to wield immensely powerful bows. And with their proportionately weaker armor, these bows will remain effective for longer.
Heavy cavalry may be delayed since it will take much longer to breed horses in large numbers that can support the weight of these giants.
Overall, I wouldn't expect a dramatic shift, just a longer road before heavy cavalry becomes king of war and a longer road before the advances in armor technology start forcing you to switch to gunpowder.
answered Aug 12 at 19:42
JeutnargJeutnarg
3,5139 silver badges21 bronze badges
answered Aug 12 at 19:42
JeutnargJeutnarg
3,5139 silver badges21 bronze badges
answered Aug 12 at 19:42
JeutnargJeutnarg
3,5139 silver badges21 bronze badges
answered Aug 12 at 19:42
JeutnargJeutnarg
3,5139 silver badges21 bronze badges
3,5139 silver badges21 bronze badges
$begingroup$
I'd say that they should miss heavy cavalry phase completely - before they breed big enough horses, the people they fight against should be compelled to develop good enough guns to make heavy cavalry obsolete.
$endgroup$
– Shadow1024
Aug 13 at 7:06
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
I'd say that they should miss heavy cavalry phase completely - before they breed big enough horses, the people they fight against should be compelled to develop good enough guns to make heavy cavalry obsolete.
$endgroup$
– Shadow1024
Aug 13 at 7:06
$begingroup$
I'd say that they should miss heavy cavalry phase completely - before they breed big enough horses, the people they fight against should be compelled to develop good enough guns to make heavy cavalry obsolete.
$endgroup$
– Shadow1024
Aug 13 at 7:06
$begingroup$
I'd say that they should miss heavy cavalry phase completely - before they breed big enough horses, the people they fight against should be compelled to develop good enough guns to make heavy cavalry obsolete.
$endgroup$
– Shadow1024
Aug 13 at 7:06
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Historically, the elites who ruled over the masses of peasants wanted to be seen as something special. "Anointed by god", "blue blood", "descendants of x or z famous guy" or some other invention.
Well, our special humans here are special for real! They are something to look up to, for the common man. Like for real, because they are tall. Also stronger. Equal inteligence with humans. And faster, big size does not mean a creature is slow, think bears. They have a natural deep voice from the bigger lungs and throats that make them seem to be more manly. They are good battlefield leaders, they can lead lesser races from the front with lesser actual personal risk.
They like to practice duel while naked, and it works with that tough skinn. They do this in impress the weaker races, but also because its a lot more expensive to repair the huge armor they got.
In a real battle they always use armor and have the great strenght to effectively wield huge shields. The shields make them almost invulnerable to almost all missiles and hand weapons and can be used as battering rams. Combine this with a 5 meters long one handed pike and you have the finest heavy infantry ever.
What could be different in this society, beside the tendency of rulers to be giants ? The development of gunpowder and fire arms. This world has a bigger need for it.
A battery of several napoleonic type cannons with shrapnel and grapeshot could devastate a phalanx or shield wall of giant men.
The giants could be grenadiers. Historically grenadiers would be selected from the talles strongest men. Not a match for cannons, but deadly at close range, cities, forests, tossing grenades. But not kings of the battlefield anymore.
answered Aug 12 at 10:13
Cristi PriciuCristi Priciu
1393 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Historically, the elites who ruled over the masses of peasants wanted to be seen as something special. "Anointed by god", "blue blood", "descendants of x or z famous guy" or some other invention.
Well, our special humans here are special for real! They are something to look up to, for the common man. Like for real, because they are tall. Also stronger. Equal inteligence with humans. And faster, big size does not mean a creature is slow, think bears. They have a natural deep voice from the bigger lungs and throats that make them seem to be more manly. They are good battlefield leaders, they can lead lesser races from the front with lesser actual personal risk.
They like to practice duel while naked, and it works with that tough skinn. They do this in impress the weaker races, but also because its a lot more expensive to repair the huge armor they got.
In a real battle they always use armor and have the great strenght to effectively wield huge shields. The shields make them almost invulnerable to almost all missiles and hand weapons and can be used as battering rams. Combine this with a 5 meters long one handed pike and you have the finest heavy infantry ever.
What could be different in this society, beside the tendency of rulers to be giants ? The development of gunpowder and fire arms. This world has a bigger need for it.
A battery of several napoleonic type cannons with shrapnel and grapeshot could devastate a phalanx or shield wall of giant men.
The giants could be grenadiers. Historically grenadiers would be selected from the talles strongest men. Not a match for cannons, but deadly at close range, cities, forests, tossing grenades. But not kings of the battlefield anymore.
answered Aug 12 at 10:13
Cristi PriciuCristi Priciu
1393 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Historically, the elites who ruled over the masses of peasants wanted to be seen as something special. "Anointed by god", "blue blood", "descendants of x or z famous guy" or some other invention.
Well, our special humans here are special for real! They are something to look up to, for the common man. Like for real, because they are tall. Also stronger. Equal inteligence with humans. And faster, big size does not mean a creature is slow, think bears. They have a natural deep voice from the bigger lungs and throats that make them seem to be more manly. They are good battlefield leaders, they can lead lesser races from the front with lesser actual personal risk.
They like to practice duel while naked, and it works with that tough skinn. They do this in impress the weaker races, but also because its a lot more expensive to repair the huge armor they got.
In a real battle they always use armor and have the great strenght to effectively wield huge shields. The shields make them almost invulnerable to almost all missiles and hand weapons and can be used as battering rams. Combine this with a 5 meters long one handed pike and you have the finest heavy infantry ever.
What could be different in this society, beside the tendency of rulers to be giants ? The development of gunpowder and fire arms. This world has a bigger need for it.
A battery of several napoleonic type cannons with shrapnel and grapeshot could devastate a phalanx or shield wall of giant men.
The giants could be grenadiers. Historically grenadiers would be selected from the talles strongest men. Not a match for cannons, but deadly at close range, cities, forests, tossing grenades. But not kings of the battlefield anymore.
answered Aug 12 at 10:13
Cristi PriciuCristi Priciu
1393 bronze badges
$endgroup$
Historically, the elites who ruled over the masses of peasants wanted to be seen as something special. "Anointed by god", "blue blood", "descendants of x or z famous guy" or some other invention.
Well, our special humans here are special for real! They are something to look up to, for the common man. Like for real, because they are tall. Also stronger. Equal inteligence with humans. And faster, big size does not mean a creature is slow, think bears. They have a natural deep voice from the bigger lungs and throats that make them seem to be more manly. They are good battlefield leaders, they can lead lesser races from the front with lesser actual personal risk.
They like to practice duel while naked, and it works with that tough skinn. They do this in impress the weaker races, but also because its a lot more expensive to repair the huge armor they got.
In a real battle they always use armor and have the great strenght to effectively wield huge shields. The shields make them almost invulnerable to almost all missiles and hand weapons and can be used as battering rams. Combine this with a 5 meters long one handed pike and you have the finest heavy infantry ever.
What could be different in this society, beside the tendency of rulers to be giants ? The development of gunpowder and fire arms. This world has a bigger need for it.
A battery of several napoleonic type cannons with shrapnel and grapeshot could devastate a phalanx or shield wall of giant men.
The giants could be grenadiers. Historically grenadiers would be selected from the talles strongest men. Not a match for cannons, but deadly at close range, cities, forests, tossing grenades. But not kings of the battlefield anymore.
answered Aug 12 at 10:13
Cristi PriciuCristi Priciu
1393 bronze badges
answered Aug 12 at 10:13
Cristi PriciuCristi Priciu
1393 bronze badges
answered Aug 12 at 10:13
Cristi PriciuCristi Priciu
1393 bronze badges
answered Aug 12 at 10:13
Cristi PriciuCristi Priciu
1393 bronze badges
1393 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f152725%2fmedieval-warfare-and-combat-implications-of-superior-strength-and-skin-as-strong%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
6
$begingroup$
Why on Earth would such a species develop along the same lines as the European civilization? The western European medieval society (and culture, and warfare) was quite unlike (as in not similar at all) with medieval Chinese society, or medieval Indian society, or medieval Persian or Arab or Turkish society. So yes, most certainly they would "have developed different tendencies in warfare", and in poetry, and in cooking, and in embroidery and in everything else.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Aug 11 at 23:02
3
$begingroup$
regular leather armor suck except boiled/hardened leather, because boiled/hardened leather type is quite tough compare to common leather except against piercing, historically there already example of barbarian strength and naked such as gauls and other tribe fighting more advance culture like rome befitting the barbarian, for tendencies of warfare its more depend on the culture or the land so need more context.
$endgroup$
– Li Jun
Aug 12 at 3:26
1
$begingroup$
How much do they eat? The size of historical armies - and hence, their tactics - had a lot to do with the ability to keep soldiers fed.
$endgroup$
– Geoffrey Brent
Aug 12 at 10:48
2
$begingroup$
Please note that leather armor was: #1. not as prevalent as most people imagine. #2. completely different from the biker jacket style "leather jerkin" most commonly found in movies and video games, and #3. almost nonexistent in the time and place most standard medieval European fantasy settings are based on.
$endgroup$
– vsz
Aug 12 at 14:42
2
$begingroup$
Interestingly, I imagine the biggest problem for this race is that if their "leather skin" is effective enough to actually matter, that would be far more biologically expensive. Combined with their size (also biologically expensive with diminishing returns), this race would probably be VERY susceptible to anything that caused a food shortage. If they haven't already harvested/hunted the land to the point that they can't sustain a minimum viable population anymore.
$endgroup$
– Tezra
Aug 12 at 19:01