SF Military Tropes

[Darth Wong]

But those advantages don't have anything to do at all with the genetic characteristics of the particular organisms. It's more like how creature A happened to be inhabiting a land rich in food sources, while creature B happened to get wiped out by an asteroid. I guess they can influence evolution because they are more like extrinsic environmental factors, but these are hardly hereditary genetic attributes that get passed down from generation after generation. So they're part of evolution, but just a different part from what Night_stalker thinks?

Precisely. All that stuff factors into evolution, regardless of whether it's genetic or not. The non-genetic nature of the "dino-killer" asteroid does not make the ascendance of small mammals any less of an evolutionary event.

Night_stalker has a eugenicist's view of evolution, whereby it must always select for "superior" genetics.

Let's use an example: let's rewind the clock to my 20th birthday and assume I've been drafted along with some other guy; let's just call him Joe. Now let's say G.I. Joe is bigger than me, stronger than me, faster than me, and speaks three languages. He gets selected for Special Forces training, and assigned to very dangerous missions. Meanwhile, although I'm a reasonably fit physical specimen in most ways, I am near-sighted and flat-footed, but I'm good with math. My combination of strengths and weaknesses means that I get assigned to artillery. Which one of us is most likely to survive the war, go home, get married, and have kids? Does that mean I had superior genetics?

[The Romulan Republic]

In a lot of fantasy settings, the local equivalent of the crown jewels includes magic weapons so powerful that no random arrow or lightning bolt is at all likely to fry the king.

Throw in leaders who have supernatural abilities as well, ie Force-users, channelers in The Wheel of Time series, etc, to the point where no ordinary warrior is likely to kill them one-on-one.

Besides which, you're a feudal monarch who rules by establishing that he's the most formidable fellow in the land, and you can't maintain effective control of your troops except by staying within shouting distance of them.

It's only when the wars become more modern-ish (as, admittedly, they do in Warcraft) that this becomes questionable.

Not sure the issue of troop control justifies having the king on the battlefield. Command could just as easily be given to a trusted captain or nobel who is nonetheless a little more expendable. However, you make a good point regarding the leader's reputation.

[Shroom Man 777]

Precisely. All that stuff factors into evolution, regardless of whether it's genetic or not. The non-genetic nature of the "dino-killer" asteroid does not make the ascendance of small mammals any less of an evolutionary event.

Night_stalker has a eugenicist's view of evolution, whereby it must always select for "superior" genetics.

Let's use an example: let's rewind the clock to my 20th birthday and assume I've been drafted along with some other guy; let's just call him Joe. Now let's say G.I. Joe is bigger than me, stronger than me, faster than me, and speaks three languages. He gets selected for Special Forces training, and assigned to very dangerous missions. Meanwhile, although I'm a reasonably fit physical specimen in most ways, I am near-sighted and flat-footed, but I'm good with math. My combination of strengths and weaknesses means that I get assigned to artillery. Which one of us is most likely to survive the war, go home, get married, and have kids? Does that mean I had superior genetics?

Oh no! The fact that environmental factors that act as natural selection did not in fact select physically superior attributes, but instead we had extraneous factors put you in a survivable situation that had NOTHING to do with your physicality or whatever, totally craps on my simplistic and popularly inaccurate views of evolution! I can't believe that the environment doesn't actually weed out superior dominant genes from inferior thrice-damned recessive genes, and in fact evolution/natural selection are pretty much working on a "shit happens" basis for selecting whoever gets to pass his genes (whether or not he is physically superior or not). Inconceivable! What will I do now, Mister Wongs?!



(Of course, physical superiority HELPS a lot in allowing creatures to pass their genes and stuff. But that's not all to it in natural selection, and sometimes natural selection happens by "shit happening"?)

[Artemas]

In a lot of fantasy settings, the local equivalent of the crown jewels includes magic weapons so powerful that no random arrow or lightning bolt is at all likely to fry the king.

Throw in leaders who have supernatural abilities as well, ie Force-users, channelers in The Wheel of Time series, etc, to the point where no ordinary warrior is likely to kill them one-on-one.

Besides which, you're a feudal monarch who rules by establishing that he's the most formidable fellow in the land, and you can't maintain effective control of your troops except by staying within shouting distance of them.

It's only when the wars become more modern-ish (as, admittedly, they do in Warcraft) that this becomes questionable.

Not sure the issue of troop control justifies having the king on the battlefield. Command could just as easily be given to a trusted captain or nobel who is nonetheless a little more expendable. However, you make a good point regarding the leader's reputation.

It's a prestige and political thing. If you lead the army, win the battle, then everyone will see you as the victor. If you let a captain or general do it, people will see them as the victor instead. Especially if you were fit enough to lead the army, but declined. Furthermore, giving popularity (by the army) to a potential rival is a pretty terrible idea, especially given the typical feudal kingdom, where individuals and personalities can totally change things.

[Batman]

On the other hand, if you lead the army and DIE, you're-well, DEAD. If the captain you chose to lead your army dies, well, sucks to be him. If he lives and gains prestige, to the point that he's a potential rival, at least you're alive to take him on.
Other than for Arthur-type invulnerable figures (and just for the record I can think of several ways to get around that 'invulnerable to stabbing' problem with then contemporary means and materials) the king leading the army is a really bad idea.

[Simon_Jester]

True. It was very much a balance, but a lot of medieval leaders weighed their options and decided to go fight in person. Look at the Battle of Hastings: both would-be kings of England were on the field. The battle was nearly lost when one of them was unhorsed and thought dead, and WAS lost when the other died. And the dead king had just gotten back from fighting another battle in which he defeated yet another claimant to the English crown by the expedient of shooting him in the neck.

So three out of three people who wanted to be King of England in 1066 were accompanying their troops to the battle, and two of them didn't live to regret their bad decision on this score. But the fact remains that they did fight in the battle. It may have been a tactical blunder, but then again it may have been a necessary gamble. It's hard for us to tell a thousand years later; I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt because they had more political sense than I do.

[Batman]

Um-given that it DID happen over a thousand years ago and what records of it we have are likely to be incomplete, biased, and possibly both, and history is LOUSY with high power political figures being stupid beyond belief (if not necessarily for long on account of DYING as a consequence), why do you think those people were smarter than you and them being personally involved in those battles was actually a good idea?

[open_sketchbook]

Not to mention the presence of the King on the battlefield can have a huge moral effect. First off, it shows that the battle is important enough that he feels he has to personally oversee it. Second off, it's less likely some minor lord or whatever will flee the field if his boss is looking right over his shoulder.

[Kingmaker]

It's important to remember that in many cases these kings were essentially the only thing holding their armies together. For example, William of Normandy can't delegate authority, because without him there is no invasion. Likewise, if Harold Godwinson isn't at the Battle of Hastings, it might have been difficult to keep his army together. If the social structure of the period's military dictates that the king lead the army, then he's going to be leading the army. Otherwise he won't have one. To put it another way, kings were military leaders because it was part of the job description. If you aren't going to lead in war, you can't be king.

[Ford Prefect]

Um-given that it DID happen over a thousand years ago and what records of it we have are likely to be incomplete, biased, and possibly both, and history is LOUSY with high power political figures being stupid beyond belief (if not necessarily for long on account of DYING as a consequence), why do you think those people were smarter than you and them being personally involved in those battles was actually a good idea?

Gee, here's me thinking that in the past society had a completely different understanding of what constitutes authority, but you set me straight. It absolutely must be because of total idiocy, and there are no other factors relevant at all, like the need to accumulate personal glory to be taken seriously as a leader.

[dworkin]

Lead from the front is a really bad idea but there are reasons to do so. Just not great ones.

Culture: Tradition demands that the leader, well leads. Be it some warrior code, machismo, religion or all of the above and more, it just comes with the job. Hopefully there are heirs.

Command: Being in the front means being there to take advantage of any opening, correct any setback, etc quickly. Of course if the setback is 'king catches a case of stabby' it does all go to poo really quick.

Trust: Not as common a commodity as you'ld think. The old adage, if you want something done right, do it yourself applies. See the hijinks of Saul and David in The Bible for some classic trust issues.

Fame: Like it or not being 'in the thick of it' and getting all the glory is seen as important, especially for feudal warrior types. The line 'Saul has slain his thousands and David his tens of thousands' and the fun and games resulting over it apply.

Stuff: It's good to be king. They do get the best stuff. The best weapons and armour, best food, best training, best medical care and so on. The bodyguard has as good or the next best. This is probably the most potent unit and as a result gets used frequently and often until you get thinking along the lines of 'When you have a hammer...'.

Fantasy worlds get these and more:

Magic Power: Having (or being) the world's most badass wizard on your team can really tip things in your favour. This is especially true if it's a typical fantasy novel. Not as smart in an rpg where everyone, their granny and the granny's cat can hurl firery doom.

Magic Gear: Like having the best stuff above, but more. Having the local Excalibur, Stormbringer, One Ring ripoff can mean you're almost invincible.

Magic Healing: Heroes in fantasy worlds often get medical care far in excess of modern capabilities. At the extreme even death is only an annoying setback. As a result, one can afford to show off.

Magic Gods: Unlike reality, there is abundant and often personal evidence that the gods are real. When McZues hands you the McStormthwacker to personally do for McNasty you do so. You don't have to believe you're Achilles reincarnated when you actually are.

Magic Fate: Often the hero has some broad (but not all-encompassing) immunity to mortal annoyances like slings and arrows. Or the entire universe is forcing you to confront McNasty like it was a cosmological constant or something (Yes Mr Eddings, I do mean you)

[Simon_Jester]

Um-given that it DID happen over a thousand years ago and what records of it we have are likely to be incomplete, biased, and possibly both, and history is LOUSY with high power political figures being stupid beyond belief (if not necessarily for long on account of DYING as a consequence), why do you think those people were smarter than you and them being personally involved in those battles was actually a good idea?

Oh, I have no reason to assume they were smarter than me. But I know damn well they were more politically savvy than I was, because they managed to become kings and rule over large territories, despite the fact that all three of them faced enemies who were trying to take their jobs and kill them.

William of Normandy had to fight a civil war in his teens. He won. He then successfully planned a major cross-channel invasion of England and conquered the island.

Harald Hardrade started out as the exiled son of a deposed king, led a small army in the Byzantine Empire, then came back, muscled his way into a position as co-ruler and crushed all opposition. He was doing great until he got ambitious and went for a land grab in England.

Harold the Saxon... well, for all I know he was a fuckup.

That said, two of those guys managed to deal with very serious political opposition in a (literally) cutthroat environment. They may not have had more sheer brainpower than you or me, but I am damned confident they had more political savvy. If they thought it was necessary for them to lead their troops in person, I'll take their word for it.

[Patrick Degan]

William of Normandy had to fight a civil war in his teens. He won. He then successfully planned a major cross-channel invasion of England and conquered the island.

Harald Hardrade started out as the exiled son of a deposed king, led a small army in the Byzantine Empire, then came back, muscled his way into a position as co-ruler and crushed all opposition. He was doing great until he got ambitious and went for a land grab in England.

Harold the Saxon... well, for all I know he was a fuckup.

That said, two of those guys managed to deal with very serious political opposition in a (literally) cutthroat environment. They may not have had more sheer brainpower than you or me, but I am damned confident they had more political savvy. If they thought it was necessary for them to lead their troops in person, I'll take their word for it.

Actually, Harold Godwinson nearly won at Hastings. He had put his army on a forced march northward to meet the threat of Harald Hadrada, managed to get to Stamford Bridge first, and destroyed him. Receiving news of the Norman landings, Harold decided to pick a good defensible site inland to meet the invaders, marched his army south, and occupied a good hilltop at Hastings. For the most part, the Saxon shield wall held all through the day and William was down to his last charge as dusk was breaking. A (literally) lucky shot —an arrow which pierced Harold's eye just as he looked upward for a moment— killed the Saxon king and his army's morale collapsed. Only then did William finally succeed.

[Simon_Jester]

Ah, yes, Patrick, I know. My point is that while I know William of Normandy accomplished some pretty impressive political feats in his youth, and I know Harald Hardrada was a tough and canny guy who was also pretty canny politically... I can't prove that Harold the Saxon was a good politician.

But even so, at a bare minimum, both William and Harald were both more politically adept than me (and probably more so than Batman), just because they survived a political environment that would normally kill or depose them. I couldn't do what they did. So it would be insane for me to think "oh, well, they must have been musclebound idiots for not realizing how much smarter it would be for them to stay out of battle instead of leading their troops in person."

[PeZook]

Command and control is the single biggest reason why you would want to personally command armies on important campaigns. A lot of people simply don't appreciate how sluggish medieval armies were to respond to orders, both tactically, but even more important - strategically. If the campaign will result in victory or end of your rule (and all too common occurence) you want to be there to make strategic decisions quickly and with full appreciation of the situation. Issues of tactical command are important, too: a medieval battlefield is a messy place of much chaos and confusion and primitive communications. The king provides authority, focus and commands the reserves.

And, of course, there's the very good points about political realities other people brought up, which are just as important. After all, what good is a victorious battle if you can't maintain the throne afterwards?

[Imperial Overlord]

Morale is another reason to lead from the front.

[Redleader34]

I always thought this might be a workable explanation for dubious clonetrooper tactics in AOTC. Yes, they've been training, but who trained the trainers? The Republic hasn't experienced real combat for a thousand years, and in real-life armies, it's considered seriously deleterious to lack trainers who have not personally experienced combat. To be fifty generations away from real experience is to probably allow an ungodly number of bizarre made-up ideas to percolate into military training regimens, and to allow an ungodly number of good ones to percolate out.

Also, as Sea Skimmer likes to keep telling me -- the military places a great amount of weight on combat experience. Even if it is the wrong kind of experience. Look at how the US Army took a decade long detour from modernizing it's ground forces by drawing the wrong conclusions from it's 1998-1999 Kosovo experience in transporting troops over to the Balkans; and convinced it self that it needed C-130 transportable vehicles to avoid a repeat of the Kosovo Fiasco of deploying an Apache unit.

It could be that the last large scale war that the SW galaxy had before the Clone Wars occured at a time when personal shielding in both energy shields and personal armor was at a peak compared to the weapons effects from blasters at the period. So walking in massed ranks wouldn't be stupid -- you would be maximizing your shield/armor advantage against incoming fire.

The problem would be that since then weapons technology has really overtaken protective technology by the Clone War period.

Also, they just picked the wrong person to train the GAR in Jango Fett. He had all the wrong skillsets that were needed for the job.

You unintentionally described the old KOTOR era, where everything had personal shielding (I know game mechanics) and cheap (for a jedi) massive armor. Sorry, I wanted to comment on that, since reading that, it seems pretty interesting.

[Darth Wong]

Command and control is the single biggest reason why you would want to personally command armies on important campaigns. A lot of people simply don't appreciate how sluggish medieval armies were to respond to orders, both tactically, but even more important - strategically. If the campaign will result in victory or end of your rule (and all too common occurence) you want to be there to make strategic decisions quickly and with full appreciation of the situation. Issues of tactical command are important, too: a medieval battlefield is a messy place of much chaos and confusion and primitive communications. The king provides authority, focus and commands the reserves.

And, of course, there's the very good points about political realities other people brought up, which are just as important. After all, what good is a victorious battle if you can't maintain the throne afterwards?

Why is there so much discussion of medieval armies? This thread is about science fiction armies, is it not?

[Batman]

That'd be the part where I derailed the thread by claiming that kings leading their troops into battle was a stupid idea I suspect.

[Ghost Rider]

Command and control is the single biggest reason why you would want to personally command armies on important campaigns. A lot of people simply don't appreciate how sluggish medieval armies were to respond to orders, both tactically, but even more important - strategically. If the campaign will result in victory or end of your rule (and all too common occurence) you want to be there to make strategic decisions quickly and with full appreciation of the situation. Issues of tactical command are important, too: a medieval battlefield is a messy place of much chaos and confusion and primitive communications. The king provides authority, focus and commands the reserves.

And, of course, there's the very good points about political realities other people brought up, which are just as important. After all, what good is a victorious battle if you can't maintain the throne afterwards?

Why is there so much discussion of medieval armies? This thread is about science fiction armies, is it not?

Got derailed the page before with Simon Jester and spawned into another little zergling.

[MKSheppard]

Morale is another reason to lead from the front.

Pretty much yes. However, you should not lead in the literal front. That way lies being killed damn fast. The casualty rates for 2nd Lieutenant equivalents in any army is horribly high for that reason; they HAVE to lead their platoon, and in a 30 man unit, there isn't much you can do other than be in the front.

By the time you hit company level units, there's enough buffer (200+ men), that you can actually begin to do more than just exhort people; and begin to actually exert a wider command net than just your immediate surroundings.

[PainRack]

Has anyone mentioned the technology paradox yet?

If you're fighting against another military state, tech matters. Your own superior technology will ensure you win the day with minimal losses and civilian casualties(or maximum. Your choice)

On the other hand, if you're fighting against an oppressive tyrant of the people, its the will of the people, the creativity, innovation, PEOPLE POWER that matters most. Oh, and somehow, you still win the war by losing less people than the enemy.

Chris Bunch, I'm looking at you.

[Simon_Jester]

Has anyone mentioned the technology paradox yet?

If you're fighting against another military state, tech matters. Your own superior technology will ensure you win the day with minimal losses and civilian casualties(or maximum. Your choice)

On the other hand, if you're fighting against an oppressive tyrant of the people, its the will of the people, the creativity, innovation, PEOPLE POWER that matters most. Oh, and somehow, you still win the war by losing less people than the enemy.

Chris Bunch, I'm looking at you.

You know, that's the bit that seems really bugworthy to me.

Technology has changed military operations more than it's changed secret police work, so far. That may change approaching a Singularity, but barring that... not so much. So if I'm writing non-Singularitarian science fiction, the possibility of a color revolution, or something like it, where PEOPLE POWER beats tyranny, is a distinct plausibility.

But a lot of good people tend to die in the doing. So that part, that's worthy of being bugged.

[ray245]

Has anyone mentioned the technology paradox yet?

If you're fighting against another military state, tech matters. Your own superior technology will ensure you win the day with minimal losses and civilian casualties(or maximum. Your choice)

On the other hand, if you're fighting against an oppressive tyrant of the people, its the will of the people, the creativity, innovation, PEOPLE POWER that matters most. Oh, and somehow, you still win the war by losing less people than the enemy.

Chris Bunch, I'm looking at you.

What about industrial might?

[Sarevok]

^^ Thata a good one. In fiction spartan warrior states are considered stronger than industrial nations. Even though in reality the superior production base of an industrialised faction would gurantee its victory.