Dwarves Don't Use Axes

[Thanas]

When real-life armies always managed to get into other tunnels in history, I fail to see how dwarfes of all people would fail at that.

[Batman]

By this time I think there are at least 3 different discussions going on in this thread. The one from the OP was, at least as I understand it, about, assuming dwarves fight in tunnels and wear heavy armour why would they use axes? Then came the (perfectly rational) critique of since they must have surface settlements why not just attack those, and wouldn't they thus have their weaponry adapted to that' and the most recent 'how the hell do you get into other people's tunnels'. 'I' was commenting on what kinds of weapons would be the most useful in the OP scenario, nothing more.

[Thanas]

Ah, ok.

[Formless]

When real-life armies always managed to get into other tunnels in history, I fail to see how dwarfes of all people would fail at that.

Could you give me examples?

I mean, I don't doubt it will happen. See my speculation about dwarven war spades. I just doubt it will be the dominating mode of combat due to the difficulties involved when attacking a competent foe. Think of my skepticism as a challenge rather than a point blank denial that it will ever happen.

Plus, what Batman said. I've been skeptical about tunnel fighting since my first post.

[Alyrium Denryle]

And keep in mind that while the events of the book are fictionalized, they were written by an actual french veteran of the trenches.

Yes. The entrenching tool is an improvised axe. The use of entrenching tools has more to do with the evolution of warfare and what was available to the soldiers in the trenches as a melee weapon than with optimal weapon design.

They had a choice. They could use a bayonette which was attached to a long shaft (the rifle), and thus difficult to use in close quarters (where your opponent could come from any direction. This is not a problem when your enemy is only coming from one place and you have well disciplined ranks), they could detach the bayonette and use it as a knife, and thus have little parrying ability (they were NOT taught effective dagger-fighting in this time period as I recall), or they could use an entrenching tool which offered killing ability, a bit of reach, and enough weight to deflect an enemy blow without having a whole lot of training in close in-fighting.

They resorted to this precisely because they were not issued (or trained in) purpose built weapons like warhammers, maces, axes. and dirks/short swords/gladii, which would have been ideal for fighting in a trench.

The spade was just the best option out of the ones they had available. It was not the best of all possible solutions.

Thirdly, lifestyle can affect weapons. People who are used to using an implement in normal life are inclined to use it in war, if it’s reasonable to do so. Dwarves mine rock and beat metal for a living. They can be expected to use hammers and picks, not axes to any great extent. While no doubt woodcutting does have to be done, it doesn’t have the same esteem as mining or smithing.

Hammers yes, a pick not so much. Spikes, also yes. There is a difference. A pick that is swung (which requires a lot of space) will penetrate armor and then get stuck, and you wont have the leverage to pull it out effectively. The backspikes on a poleaxe (to the extent they had a backspike, as both of these are poleaxes)...

http://www.cashanwei.com/img/prod/XB0099.jpg

http://www.a2armory.com/images/poleaxe.jpg

... was used more to hook into your opponent's armor and bring him to the ground so you can stab him through the eye-socket with a dagger.

The thrusting spike on the front however was good for forcing an opponent back and is precise enough for thrusting through gaps in the armor, but did not (unless you get lucky) usually provide the leverage necessary to punch through a steel plate. You COULD do it, but your opponent would be forced backward first (his stance is weaker than his armor and unless the blow is strong enough to just go right through...) unless he is already on the ground.

As for tunnel fighting... You are fighting in a narrow space (though not necessarily unvaulted, it depends on the architecture of the tunnels) so you dont have to worry about being flanked (unless they go through a side tunnel and come up behind you, but that is what a rear-guard/reserves are for), you dont have a whole lot of room to swing a weapon, and you need something that can deal with plate armor. You also want versatile tactics that can deal with primitives like goblin hordes. You also dont need to do a lot of maneuver--so mobility/defense tradeoffs are optimized by focusing on defense. You are plugging a tunnel with men that will hold that tunnel and not fucking budge.

So, you have a front rank of big beefy dwarves with shields and warhammers/maces in the front rank (you might need to swing them, but that space can just as easily be in the vertical as horizontal), and behind them in a checkerboard pattern are shield men and guys with polearm--probably bec de corbin

http://www.discoverthemiddleages.com/im ... in%201.jpg

That way, as men in the front rank fall or become exhausted, someone in the second third fourth etc rank can jump in to take their place, and you set up an impenetrable wall of shields and maces, backed up by pole-arm hammers raining blows down on your enemy's heads, or shoving them back with spikes. A Bec de Corbin is relatively short, so does not need a whole lot of vertical space, but can still reach one or two ranks beyond the man wielding it. Crossbowmen would be behind the block with their crossbows zeroed in a short way beyond the infantry formation, able to shoot just over the heads of their own men to set up a killing zone right in front of them, breaking the momentum of charges and just generally making that space in front of and adjacent to the dwarven front line a very unpleasant place to be.

Remember, we are talking tunnel fighting here, but not siege mine fighting. These are tunnels that cities and highways are made from. They are large, but still have solid walls, and probably have some vault to them.

On the open agricultural planes/terraces that any dwarf society needs to support itself, they more than likely will fight like the Swiss or Welsh (albeit with crossbow rather than longbow for the later).

More on this distinction, actually...

If we are going to talk about dwarves as mountain kings, what you are probably looking at are subterranean urban areas. Dwarf Florence or Rome will be built down and out, not up and out. They may or may not have tunnels between their cities that act as highways. This is a common trope, I dont know how much we want to deviate from it. Their food sources will probably be like the cities of Switzerland--built inside mountain valleys with limited above-ground access, and thus easily defended by fortresses in the mountain passes that may be castles much less than they are bunkers carved out of the mountain stone.

Think of it this way. There will be sprawling farms in the valley that support one or more subterranean cities in the surrounding mountains. If the dwarves fight between these valley-centered areas, they may or may not have subterranean access. If yes, then wars will be fought by area denial, simply denying the tunnels to your enemy and trying to break through their formations. Also traps. This may entail chemical warfare (sulfur, wood smoke etc depending on technological sophistication) or it might not. The tunnels and cities will however be well ventilated by necessity if we accept the subterranean city premise (think termite mound. They have an air and heat exchange system). They wont be hot and cramped, they are more likely to be rather chilly, actually, if constant in temperature. They may try to get around tunnel blockades with siege mines, but that just means fighting your enemy when they exit after you (hopefully) detect their tunnel working by putting your ear to the walls. Less counter-mining, because you dont need to worry about them collapsing a castle wall.

If they have above ground access, this is largely similar because access is still restricted by narrow passes which may me made more narrow by constructed defenses. More can be done however, because you can roll boulders over cliffs, or station archers or artillery on a cliff face overlooking a battlefield.

Point is: Dwarven tunnels/underground city complexes (if we accept the premise) are not necessarily analogous to human tunnel warfare.

Could you give me examples?

Any siege involving a siege mine ever.

[Thanas]

When real-life armies always managed to get into other tunnels in history, I fail to see how dwarfes of all people would fail at that.

Could you give me examples?

About any siege in history? One well-publicized example in antiquity would be the siege of Dura-Europos by Shapur I.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ghetto Edit:

One way of fortifying a tunnel might be to build gate-houses at intervals. Just a wall of arbitrary thickness (which may or may not have been constructed after the tunnel was built, so much as built into the tunnel architecture) with a series of doors/drawbridges/portculli leading through it, and arrow slits cut into galleries inside the wall. If you want to be especially sophisticated, arrow slits can be cut into galleries that flank the gatehouse, or even above it so you can drop Terrible Things (tm) down on anyone trying to get through.

[Batman]

That sounds like seriously large tunnels. I means doors/drawbridges/portculli aren't something you can fit into a tunnel 10 feet across, which sort of nixes the 'no room to swing a weapon' approach.

[Alyrium Denryle]

That sounds like seriously large tunnels. I means doors/drawbridges/portculli aren't something you can fit into a tunnel 10 feet across, which sort of nixes the 'no room to swing a weapon' approach.

For an individual no. Ranks of men however... you need a good amount of space to have a bunch of guys with Dane Axes.

Remember, we are talking about underground cities and highways here, not necessarily a siege mine.

[Formless]

Yes. The entrenching tool is an improvised axe. The use of entrenching tools has more to do with the evolution of warfare and what was available to the soldiers in the trenches as a melee weapon than with optimal weapon design.

They had a choice. They could use a bayonette which was attached to a long shaft (the rifle), and thus difficult to use in close quarters (where your opponent could come from any direction. This is not a problem when your enemy is only coming from one place and you have well disciplined ranks), they could detach the bayonette and use it as a knife, and thus have little parrying ability (they were NOT taught effective dagger-fighting in this time period as I recall), or they could use an entrenching tool which offered killing ability, a bit of reach, and enough weight to deflect an enemy blow without having a whole lot of training in close in-fighting.

They resorted to this precisely because they were not issued (or trained in) purpose built weapons like warhammers, maces, axes. and dirks/short swords/gladii, which would have been ideal for fighting in a trench.

The spade was just the best option out of the ones they had available. It was not the best of all possible solutions.

It doesn't need to be an ideal weapon. It needs to be a good weapon. Consider that several weapons existed on medieval and Renaissance battlefields at the same time each with their uses and tradeoffs. I don't really believe in the existence of "ideal" weapons, otherwise I might have said "bring shotguns".

Also, there actually were IIRC lots of weapons that were made just for the trenches, often in the trenches, such as clubs, maces, and those trench knives (which were often just cut down swords, a lot longer than a mere bayonet). Yet those weapons don't have dedicated combatives still written for them, unlike bayonets, knives... and entrenching tools.

But anyway, it sounds like it is pretty good as a weapon for conscripts that you don't have time to train. Plus, its actually more versatile than an ax since it can be used for thrusting as well, not counting its utility for a people that preferentially live under the earth.

Edit: and I still have a problem with the idea of dwarves living all their lives underground, let alone going in full plate to fight down there. Again, how many of you have ever actually been inside a cave or mine?

[Formless]

Any siege involving a siege mine ever.

About any siege in history? One well-publicized example in antiquity would be the siege of Dura-Europos by Shapur I.

Uh, I think there is a bit of a disconnect here. One moment we were talking about attackers getting into pre-existing tunnels, the next you guys are pulling out examples of defenders getting into siege tunnels. I don't think the two are quite equivalent...

[Alyrium Denryle]

It doesn't need to be an ideal weapon. It needs to be a good weapon. Consider that several weapons existed on medieval and Renaissance battlefields at the same time each with their uses and tradeoffs. I don't really believe in the existence of "ideal" weapons, otherwise I might have said "bring shotguns".

Yes, It only has to be a good weapon. But a good weapon relative to what. Different weapons were used on medieval and renaissance battlefields, because each had their uses and various trade-offs. If I want a really good all around polearm, I will pick a halberd. If I want something that will really fuck someone up but leave me a wee vulnerable, I might pick a flail.

An entrenching tool was a good weapon in WW1 because it was better than the alternatives and had multi-functionality vis-à-vis digging. However, they have severe disadvantages when compared to a purpose built military axe. They are not balanced for killing, but digging. Against a person with a military axe (which given that many had spikes on the front or projecting edges could also be used for thrusting, not that you would want to with its limited reach, and large area-on-point) given equal skill, the guy with an entrenching tool is at a disadvantage.

It is better than nothing if you have to defend your home on short notice or have another weapon very ill-suited for your military role, but against a purpose built weapon with similar us, it is shit. There is a reason why weapons--even those derived from common tools--went on their own separate evolutionary paths from their more mundane counterparts. The axe was one of the first weapons ever, but it specialized into a purpose built killing implement even before their were distinct social classes.

But anyway, it sounds like it is pretty good as a weapon for conscripts that you don't have time to train

Not when there are better alternatives like a spear or any number of other purpose built weapons that are cheap and properly balanced for killing people.

Edit: and I still have a problem with the idea of dwarves living all their lives underground, let alone going in full plate to fight down there. Again, how many of you have ever actually been in a cave or mine?

[/quote]

I have, and we are not talking about a similar environment. More like a scaled up termite mound built into a mountain. Much different.

Uh, I think there is a bit of a disconnect here. One moment we were talking about attackers getting into pre-existing tunnels, the next you guys are pulling out examples of defenders getting into siege tunnels. I don't think the two are quite equivalent...

Except that they are. If anything, getting into a siege mine is more difficult because you dont know where it is. Sure the sound of digging on the other side gives you an approximate location, but that is still an iterative process. "Looks like we over-shot, need to double back and dig down another ten ten degrees". You also dont have to worry about collapsing your own wall accidentally.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Or leaf cutter ants



Make it bigger. Much Bigger. And carved out of bedrock.

[Formless]

There is a reason why weapons--even those derived from common tools--went on their own separate evolutionary paths from their more mundane counterparts. The axe was one of the first weapons ever, but it specialized into a purpose built killing implement even before their were distinct social classes.

*Shrug* As I said in my rant at Simon:

In fact, you even stated that they might make heavily modified shovels that can no longer dig... as if that wasn't exactly what I was describing!

Note that I have seen designs out there by people wondering how to make the entrenching tool better as a weapon or tool, such as giving it a concave edge to help reduce blunting of the side while digging or giving it a saw blade on the other. Stuff like that.

I have, and we are not talking about a similar environment. More like a scaled up termite mound built into a mountain. Much different.

Except that mines already have ventilation, and they are still hotter than hell. The problem is that the deeper you go underground, the hotter it gets. Termites only go a few meters under at most. We're talking about a few tens of meters at least.

Except that they are. If anything, getting into a siege mine is more difficult because you dont know where it is. Sure the sound of digging on the other side gives you an approximate location, but that is still an iterative process. "Looks like we over-shot, need to double back and dig down another ten ten degrees". You also dont have to worry about collapsing your own wall accidentally.

No, there is still a disconnect. I was talking about infiltration, getting into a mine/tunnel without digging your own. That is, finding entrances that the other guy forgot to seal, guard, or overestimated how hard it would be to exploit it. That very much is a different task altogether from finding and neutralizing a siege tunnel.

Or leaf cutter ants

*snip*

Make it bigger. Much Bigger. And carved out of bedrock.

See, its that last part that makes me think few would bother trying unless they really are the King and can afford the luxury. Too much work just to carve out a whole city from granite.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Note that I have seen designs out there by people wondering how to make the entrenching tool better as a weapon or tool, such as giving it a concave edge to help reduce blunting of the side while digging or giving it a saw blade on the other. Stuff like that.

And there is no reason to do it. You are digging into bedrock. A shovel is not what you would use. Hammers, picks, and... drills... are what you would use. If you are going to adapt a tool into a weapon at some point in your history, hammers and picks are what you would adapt. Not shovels. Might certain polearms be adapted that way? Sure. There were some weird polearms. But any wide curving blade like that will be shit against heavy armor. More on armor selection with regard to temperature and digging momentarily.

Except that mines already have ventilation, and they are still hotter than hell. The problem is that the deeper you go underground, the hotter it gets. Termites only go a few meters under at most. We're talking about a few tens of meters at least.

Our mines are not built as living quarters. Architecturally, one can build massive heat and air exchange systems with the surface that work much better than our current mine ventilation systems. It is not... cost-effective for a mine, but it would be for living space.

Mine temperature also varies considerably. It depends a lot on local geology. Also, if you are starting inside a mountain, you dont start getting close enough to the mantle for the temp to rise until after you are below sea level. Until then you are looking at a constant temp at around the mean annual temperature for the region--excluding heat from bodies, fires etc inside the city which will be exchanged from vaulted ventilation ducts anyway.

No, there is still a disconnect. I was talking about infiltration, getting into a mine/tunnel without digging your own. That is, finding entrances that the other guy forgot to seal, guard, or overestimated how hard it would be to exploit it. That very much is a different task altogether from finding and neutralizing a siege tunnel.

It is also as ridiculous as thinking that someone will forget about the existence of major highways. That is the wonderful part about building a leafcutter ant like tunnel network. It is planned. Even if you start with a natural cave system, you know the entrances and exits, as well as where those happen to go.

The reason armor is not good while in a siege mine is because they are hot--due to poor ventilation--and you are doing back-breaking labor. If someone counter-mines, your men ARE fighting with hand tools, because you dont put properly armed soldiers in your siege mine until AFTER you break through to the other side. If and when that happens, armored men may go in on both sides of the mine, depending. They might also just collapse the wall. It depends on how the wall is constructed WRT to whether or not you are digging to enter or digging to collapse.

See, its that last part that makes me think few would bother trying unless they really are the King and can afford the luxury. Too much work just to carve out a whole city from granite.

Time. Lots and lots of time. They dont start out that huge. It depends on how old the world is, how long the dwarves have been there, and what the population is.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ghetto Edit:

There is another problem with your tunnel infiltration scenario. It is a bad fucking idea. If you find a natural tunnel you dont know where it goes or what hazards are in your way. You have to send someone to map it--something it is guaranteed the residents have done-- and you can only send a few men through once that is done--unless you want to excavate it further which will certainly be noticed--what exactly are you going to do with unarmored men once you are on the other side? Open the gate? The city has a garrison, what precisely are you going to do to them?

You have not thought that through.

[Formless]

Might certain polearms be adapted that way? Sure. There were some weird polearms.

God... fucking... read the damn thread, you asshole. This whole speculation about dwarven war spades started with me talking about crossbreeding the entrenching tool with the Shaolin Spade, a polearm. I also speculated that there would be several weapons that might evolve from that, one with a long haft, one with a short haft for close quarters combat, and possible a couple more with the blade at a right angle like a half folded entrenching tool.

Jesus Christ. I hate arguing with people who don't know the context of the conversation.

Our mines are not built as living quarters. Architecturally, one can build massive heat and air exchange systems with the surface that work much better than our current mine ventilation systems. It is not... cost-effective for a mine, but it would be for living space.

Mine temperature also varies considerably. It depends a lot on local geology. Also, if you are starting inside a mountain, you dont start getting close enough to the mantle for the temp to rise until after you are below sea level. Until then you are looking at a constant temp at around the mean annual temperature for the region--excluding heat from bodies, fires etc inside the city which will be exchanged from vaulted ventilation ducts anyway.

This is assuming that you want a deep underground living space. Again, I do not understand how people go from "dwarves like to mine" to "dwarves like to do everything underground." The cliche doesn't make sense given the costs of making underground living spaces with medieval to Renaissance technology. Hell, there are only a few places where it makes sense with modern technology, like that one town in Australia where the surface heat is just that high and the (opal) mining business that good. But those are different conditions than a mountain climate.

It also doesn't make much sense given the conditions down there even with efforts to correct it. One of the biggest complaints miners tend to have is the simple lack of sunlight. Even the few cities I can think of that had significant amounts of it dug from out of rock or underground make efforts to bring sunlight into the houses. Generally this means pretty shallow digging. Humans and their kin aren't termites, you know. At least I hope... considering who I am talking to....

Between all these things, it makes me think people are still stuck in the folktale mindset where dwarves are fey or elementals or whatever magical creature you want to call it. Or maybe its just because Dwarf Fortress is so popular.

And it isn't vulcanism that makes mines hot. Where the hell did you get that idea? Mostly its just the fact that the earth around you makes for an excellent insulator IIRC.

Time. Lots and lots of time. They dont start out that huge. It depends on how old the world is, how long the dwarves have been there, and what the population is.

Yeah, true. But it will also tend to grow outwards at the surface settlements as well, if not more so because you can build faster there, and because it gives you something to do with all that rock you are removing from the mountain.

There is another problem with your tunnel infiltration scenario. It is a bad fucking idea. If you find a natural tunnel you dont know where it goes or what hazards are in your way. You have to send someone to map it--something it is guaranteed the residents have done-- and you can only send a few men through once that is done--unless you want to excavate it further which will certainly be noticed--what exactly are you going to do with unarmored men once you are on the other side? Open the gate? The city has a garrison, what precisely are you going to do to them?

You have not thought that through.

Again with the ignorance of context. I was the one arguing against this idea, as at the time it seemed to be one of the only ways forseable that tunnel fighting could happen (before you started proposing underground cities) when you can simply seize land holdings that are being used to farm crops.

Fuck this is obnoxious. At least when it was something you had to read a five hundred word rant to understand you had an excuse. This was a simple exchange that happened in just the last page and a half.

[Elfdart]

Daggers or a short swords aren't going to do all that hot against the heavy armour dwarves are typically portrayed as wearing. They'd be better of with bludgeoning weapons like hammers or mauls. Yes, you still need room to swing them, but you need room to swing a sword too, and unlike the dagger or short sword you don't have to aim for gaps in the armour.

Actually, I think awl-pointed thrusting weapons would be most effective in a narrow tunnel, where you might not have room to swing an axe, pick or hammer.

[Alyrium Denryle]

God... fucking... read the damn thread, you asshole. This whole speculation about dwarven war spades started with me talking about crossbreeding the entrenching tool with the Shaolin Spade, a polearm. I also speculated that there would be several weapons that might evolve from that, one with a long haft, one with a short haft for close quarters combat, and possible a couple more with the blade at a right angle like a half folded entrenching tool.

And I attacked your premise that it would be a good idea. There are also some strange polearms, many of them were not actually very good weapons. The point of a polearm was not to allow an unarmored guy to take out another unarmored guy. The point of a polearm was to give someone a chance at taking someone in armor, or fend off cavalry. Basically, something cheap and easy to make that you can give your peasants or that a commoner mercenary might be able to afford and replace periodically.

War spades might be very effective in the hands of a warrior-monk or for display/ceremony/exhibition

This is assuming that you want a deep underground living space. Again, I do not understand how people go from "dwarves like to mine" to "dwarves like to do everything underground." The cliche doesn't make sense given the costs of making underground living spaces with medieval to Renaissance technology.

It is fantasy. For the purposes of this thread and for the purposes of most medieval fantasy since Tolkien the whole "underground city" thing has been part and parcel of dwarves. If you want to talk about non-subterranean dwarves, start your own god damn fantasy setting.

It also doesn't make much sense given the conditions down there even with efforts to correct it. One of the biggest complaints miners tend to have is the simple lack of sunlight. Even the few cities I can think of that had significant amounts of it dug from out of rock or underground make efforts to bring sunlight into the houses. Generally this means pretty shallow digging. Humans and their kin aren't termites, you know. At least I hope... considering who I am talking to....

And dwarves may well not care/not like sunlight. They ARE a different species. We cannot expect them to think like we do, even before we get into the metaphysics and creation stories of the various fantasy worlds. In Dragon Age for example, the dwarves have a myth/cultural boogeyman about being sucked into the wide open horrifying sky.

And it isn't vulcanism that makes mines hot. Where the hell did you get that idea? Mostly its just the fact that the earth around you makes for an excellent insulator IIRC.

It is both. In relatively shallow mines, it is because of insulation and lack of ventilation. Sort of like how a lecture hall gets warm when you pack 100 people inside it. As you go deeper (past 60 to 100 feet), you start getting closer to the molten rock and the mine gets warmer due to thermal conduction through the crust.

Yeah, true. But it will also tend to grow outwards at the surface settlements as well, if not more so because you can build faster there, and because it gives you something to do with all that rock you are removing from the mountain.

Sure. Hence valley settlements for food production etc. Who lives there, why etc will depend on whatever culture we are talking about.

Again with the ignorance of context. I was the one arguing against this idea, as at the time it seemed to be one of the only ways forseable that tunnel fighting could happen (before you started proposing underground cities) when you can simply seize land holdings that are being used to farm crops.

No. It is not ignorance. I am simply responding partially to what you immediately post, and partially in response to general thread trends. You have not actually thought the matter through all that well, which I will explain presently

...

Yes and no. Yeah, you were arguing against the idea--from a set of buggered premises and thread-shifting. You assumed that the only fighting that would take place in tunnels would be like a siege mine/countermine. Where one side attempts to break in through a set of tunnels constructed for that purpose, OR finds a secondary tunnel that is left unguarded, and where traversing it would make heavy weapons and armor a liability.

And again, how the hell do you expect to get into an enemy's pre-dug tunnels? They are his pre-dug tunnels for crying out loud! They aren't public space, they are going to be under guard, particularly in wartime. I know I keep saying this, but its true. You have to dig your own to gain access (and that's only a good idea if the major entryways lead into the main castle or fortress, otherwise just besiege the fool and grab as much of his ore as you can), or he has to be so inept at keeping out intruders you have essentially won the siege already. This is true even if he starts with a natural cave, because the first thing he is going to do is find all entryways to the cave and either plug them up, ignore them as being too hazardous for any sane being to try using (such as an immediate fifty foot drop), or guard them possibly with fortifications.

Doing that with an underground city has no military worth. You cannot get men in who wont immediately be killed by defenders. At least not the way you describe it. No one would try it in the first place. I agree with you. It is insane. I said you had not thought things through for another reason entirely.

When someone on the surface digs a military mine, they are trying to do one of a few things:

1) They are trying to undermine a wall and burn the supports causing a collapse
2) If the wall is to well built or the surrounding ground provides enough support, break into the city or fortress and bring men through.
3)An outside third option is to get a couple of guys in to open the gate or something... but it is rare to see in surface warfare and I dont really remember a case of it. Possible though.

Option 1 is a bad investment because there is no wall to collapse.
Option 2 might work, but your mine would certainly be detected, and you still end up having to fight through defended tunnel systems once you have broken into one of the main City-Vaults. This however can be modified to be more effective.
Option 3 useless because you bring in enough men to overwhelm defenders of the gate... or whatever... and if you do that, the mine will easily be detected and your men slaughtered. There is no day or night down here. No time when there is the sort of systemic lack of activity you can take advantage of to slip in a saboteur.

So, now that we have laid that ground-work...

How WOULD you attack an underground city?

Through the ventilation system is one way. Depending on how they are constructed, the ducts may be rather large (or not), and the enemy city cannot seal them. They may be fortified and guarded on the surface, but dealing with a surface fortification is much easier than dealing with an underground one, and there have to be a lot of them, so each one cannot be guarded by very many men. So you can take one of these and walk through them. Then it is just a slugging match inside the city. Or you can be evil and threaten to seal them yourself, locking the people inside to suffocate like in The Cask of Amontillado

"For the love of God Montresor!"

If that is not an option (because the defenders, in their wisdom, put their intake and out-flow flutes in geographically inaccessible locations on the surface), and you still dont want to slug it out on equal terms with the enemy army, you can get clever.

Let us assume there is a single passageway leading into the city. One which is defended by steel armored plugs of men.

You can use siege mining as a form of maneuver. You can dig a shitload of tunnels with openings throughout his primary passage. This forces your opponent to either fall back to the main gate of his city, or forces him to spread his forces too thin to adequately defend any one entry point.

In the first instance, you can tie up his army by attacking with half while you tunnel into the city with the other half. All you have to do is position your army out of bowshot really, because at any time you can enter the tunnel behind and Hammer--> Anvil him if he tries to move forward to engage you. He may have a garrison in the city, but you can do this repeatedly, each time hitting a different Vault in chevauchee like raids until he decides to fall back inside and defend the city proper. By then, he has to spread his army really thin to keep all the wonderful little tunnels you have built covered, and you can defeat him in detail.

In the second instance, just defeat him in detail.

If you start far enough away, he wont be able to detect it until you are perhaps a few hours to days to completion. Timed correctly, he may not even have the option of falling back to the city.

The problem with this is that you have to ventilate your tunnels, so you need to cut your own ventilation shafts (you may be able to connect your tunnels to his vent shafts though). You also wont be able to simply sweep the city, as I imagine there will be secondary gates between Vaults.

I could get into some depth with mine-countermine issues here as well. And also dropping shit down into Vaults from tunnels built above them. Point is, you have to think about what exact sort of defenses you might be facing, and realize that you are operating in a 4 dimensional space. Yes, 4, because time matters as well.

[Formless]

It is fantasy. For the purposes of this thread and for the purposes of most medieval fantasy since Tolkien the whole "underground city" thing has been part and parcel of dwarves. If you want to talk about non-subterranean dwarves, start your own god damn fantasy setting.

So, in a thread that is about challenging unrealistic fantasy cliche's... you have chosen to be a slave to an unrealistic cliche'. I don't give a shit what you assume about dwarves in your setting. You keep dancing around this issue: you can't create Moria with Renaissance technology! At least not in mountain bedrock (salt mines may be another story... but I mean that in more ways than one). You can barely do it with modern technology. Its a matter of expense and the sophistication of your engineering. And for what benefit? You get to live in a place where the roof over your head weighs hundreds of thousands of tons and you have to trust whatever idiot built the ventilation system to understand what he was doing. With Renaissance technology. And don't tell me that its a matter of dwarves having an instinct for subterranean living. That goes right back to the simpleminded "dwarves are earth elementals/faeries" bullshit that leads to them using axes when its inappropriate to do so. If you are just going to make them magical creatures, why bother with realism here? Why give them human limitations, human strengths, human mindsets? Why not make combat as much about magic as it is stabbing people with a sharp stick? Why even make them eat human foodstuff and not mushrooms or some shit? Why bother explaining how their cities got there, or why there is a shared underworld beneath the surface of the earth?

Why not just read Tolkien again?

So don't tell me I am the one making stupid premises here. Do not tell me I am shifting the thread. My posts are written with the intent of expanding on new ideas and getting away from cliche's of fantasy, just like the OP though perhaps more so. Your posts are self serving tripe that is ironically enough tied directly to one setting-- yours-- and which seem intent on misrepresenting all posts here as existing in that context even before you made your first "underground city" post. So take your condescension and go fuck yourself, asshole.

[The Yosemite Bear]

It's when you start capturing and domesticating monsters with the tunneling ability, that folks really worry about your dwarves. No problem we'll let my pet Horta, or purple worms that we've raised from Larve do their jobs, oh look isn't gravity a stone cold bitch? I did try domesticating Bulletes once, but went through too many hobbits....

[jollyreaper]

Couple of thoughts.

First, we're talking fantasy worlds. It's accepted that things operate on a fantastic level. Real world caves aren't part of a giant subterranean underworld? Yeah. And we don't have orcs and elves and magic, either.

So maybe the world is spongier in fantasy. Caves are bigger, more connected. The whole planet might be like swiss cheese.

But if not, there can still be cave fights. In the Middle Ages the castle was the center of life. Bad guys raid the land, everyone holes up in the castle. The moment the bad guy leaves, the land is reoccupied. You need to take the castle to control the land, otherwise you're just a visitor. You don't control the wealth. You just try to farm the land without an army, the defenders can sally forth and wipe you out.

In the case of the dwarf kingdom, the underground city isn't just the castle, it's also the wealth of the kingdom. You're taking the kingdom to get the mineral wealth. So you can try to put the mine under siege but you have no idea how long the dwarves can hold out. How much food is salted away? Where do their tunnels run? Could you have them sewn up tight for three years only to discover they're being resupplied from the next valley?

It's interesting to look at the fantasy world through Sauron's eyes. (well, eye.) Which are the productive races, which are the trash? Well, maybe not Middle-Earth in particular but the generic fantasy world inspired by it.

Elves. Not useful. Stubborn, proud, good wizard and archers but don't tame as well. Forests are meant to be harvested. Kill on sight. Dark elves don't have the goody-two-shoes limitation of standard elves but are just as stubbornly independent. Can be allies of convenience but will never submit.

Dwarves. Excellent miners, craftsmen, but difficult to tame. If you can manage that you will outproduce any other evil overlord. The best bet is to appeal to dwarven greed. Supply cheap luxuries they can't manufacture themselves, let them have their kings and a sense that they run the operation. They're insular and don't really care about outside politics.

Orcs. Very useful. Dumb, not very innovative, but dependably violent and easily controlled. Good for cheap troops and brute labor. Main drawback is requiring constant supervision.

Men. Not specialists but excellent generalists. Easy to corrupt, useful for labor and war. Bright so they keep getting smart ideas and need put in their place repeatedly or else you'll get competing dark lords.

A dark lord properly planning his economy has the dwarves mining and crafting, orcs making up the bulk of his cannon fodder forces, humans as officers and elite units, humans farming and running the bureaucracy, and elves as a fairly consistent pain the ass.

I'm overlooking a lot of the other races that can vary by setting like halflings, kenders, gnomes, gully dwarves, gremlins, giants, ogres, pixies, faeries, draconians, etc, not to mention the huge divisions to be had with tribes within the races. Humans would likely have a class stratification so that you have the elite administrators carrying out the overlord's orders and the underlings who do the drudge work.

[jollyreaper]

but I mean that in more ways than one). You can barely do it with modern technology. Its a matter of expense and the sophistication of your engineering. And for what benefit? You get to live in a place where the roof over your head weighs hundreds of thousands of tons and you have to trust whatever idiot built the ventilation system to understand what he was doing. With Renaissance technology.

You have two choices in fantasy -- you can either securely ground yourself in reality and create something that's less fantastic but feels real or you can embrace the fantasy scale and then work to rationalize it to the point that you can convince yourself it's all real.

Fantasy tends to run with the idea of bigger and awesomer. Did we ever have a Minas Tirith in our history? No. Could it have been built with the tech of the past? I'd say most likely not. How much of an assist could you credit to magic? Hard to say.

I mean hell, magic doesn't exist. It can't. Having it in a story is one of the things that makes it fantastic. But we have to apply some rules or there isn't a story. If magic means anything can happen, why can't the princess clap her hands and make the problem instantly resolve itself? Magic, right? But no story if we do that. So it's a constant tease of our suspension of disbelief, keeping us on the cusp of calling bullshit but still saying no, this could really be, if only in my dreams.

So, could humans build a dwarf city? Nope. Could the dwarves? Not if they're just nothing more than squat humans. But we don't want to give them ridiculous powers like rock-melting hands and so forth.

You yourself pointed out that salt mines are easier to carve out. The biggest manmade underground cities are in easily-carved volcanic pumice stone. Not likely to find that high in the mountains. I think the easiest solution is to just say the fantasy world is foamy, has a lot of underground spaces, they tend to be big and thus not as much mining is needed to get into them.

[Formless]

Oh, wow. So now we have two people who surrender wholesale to the unrealistic.

Look, I do not require realism in my fantasy. I understand that by definition, fantasy is unrealistic. No shit, Sherlock. That, however, is entirely irrelevant in the context of threads like this. You see, when people like myself start bringing in realism, I expect that they actually intend to follow through with that concept. If the only thing you want to be realistic about is "lolz, poleaxes" I'm not impressed. Anyone can do that. To actually build a proper world with well defined fantastic elements, and well developed realistic elements? That is what makes threads like this one interesting. And if you think you can carve out an underground city from bedrock using medieval or Renaissance technology, then you are out to lunch, and I will laugh at you if you call it a realistic assumption.

Also, nice false dilemma you got there with the "you've got two choices in fantasy..." argument. I would love to see your ass get laughed out of the Sci-Fi forums for that one.

[madd0ct0r]

you can't create Moria with Renaissance technology! At least not in mountain bedrock (salt mines may be another story... but I mean that in more ways than one). You can barely do it with modern technology. Its a matter of expense and the sophistication of your engineering.

I think you're wrong.

I've been to a few mines created with Renaissance technology. Not big, not impressive things, but they were hacked out of solid rock by a pair of underfed humans at a time. Dwarves would do a lot better.

Sophistication wise there's a few basic tricks available.
Freeze thaw Shattering near the surface,
Chisel and blasting if black powder is available to the dwarves.
If not, chisel hole, pack with dry wood stakes and soak in water. Wood expands and shatters the rock.
Or just chisel and crowbars can work well - it certainly did for the romans.

I also suspect the dwarves would come up with more efficient techniques - they certainly beat renaissance tech when it comes to smithing and alloy making.

As for expense:

The mines I saw were following a line of tin or silver into the mountain. The tiny amounts produced over time were enough to feed a famliy who worked the mine. Assuming dwarves are better miners (better technique, stronger, better spoil heap recovery ect), even smaller trace amounts of a mineral might be worthwhile to mine. Let alone fantasy stuff like mithril. A group of miners working together might be able to mine a large area even more efficiently.

Given sufficient time, humans carved huge quarries using renaissance tech. I fail to see why dwarves couldn't.