How to worldbuild: Fantasy armies 

Instruction unclear, create love triangle between the 3 armies.

One factor he doesn't cover, which is something I think should always be taken into account when creating a fantasy army, is "What kind of enemy or war are they most often going to fight." An army conceived largely to crush rebellions or defending the homefront is going to be trained, armed, and organized differently than one primarily focused on foreign campaigning. Take the Byzantine Thematic Armies and compare them to their predecessor, the Roman Legions. The Legions were organized to be largely self sufficient, capable of managing large-scale operations in lands outside of officialy Roman Territory. The Thema Tagmata on the other hand were dependent upon the local populations, given most of their fighting strength came from citizen militias with a core of career soldiers.

Tribal societies were certainly capable of advanced battle tactics. When Caesar fought the Germanic king Ariovistous, the Germanic tribesmen fought in a phalanx formation, with cavlary behind them making hit&run attacks from the cover of the shieldwall. This formation was very difficult for the Romans to handle, and the tribesmen also attacked with enourmous speed on the charge, so fast the Romans had to drop their javelins and just start fighting, there was no time to throw. Celts in Britain also had clear combat tactics and used advanced maneouvers with cavalry and chariots working with foot skirmishers to give the Romans a bad day. During the battle of the Teutoburg Forest, the Germanic ambushers also displayed discipline and restraint, not charging blindly into battle against the Romans, but whittling them down and attacking from their hidden position only when the Romans were engaged on another front. So saying that "barbarians" are only capable of simple ambushes and the like is not right. They were not as organized as a roman legion, but with decent commanders and subchiefs they could give the romans an asswhooping. See the Cimbrian Wars, for example, or the Dacians.

Military History Nerds helping out fantasy writer is like the best symbiotic relationship in the internet.

If you're wondering how to get the actual tactics of fantasy battles down then my advice would be to read about significant battles in history (Trasimene, Cannae, Alesia, Gaugamela, Vienna, Waterloo as a few random examples) and play loads of Total War. Copying real battles exactly is a bit cheap but you can take inspiration from what real armies did, and playing Total War lets you do some first-hand research on battle tactics and helps you visualise battles when you're planning them out

8:21: All armies need food Evil Necromancer: "Hold my beer! We can do better than that!"

Obviously the best armor is of course....... *PLOT ARMOR*

"The Incas actually used thick layers of linen and cotton as armor" Yes, so did everyone everywhere else. It's called a gambeson. Also leather was almost never used as protective armor, since it was way more expensive than linen and way less protective.

Regarding swords, a simple way of putting it is that they are (mostly) sidearms. So, the sword is roughly equivalent to a pistol, not the most powerful weapon but easy to carry around and still perfectly lethal. A polearm meanwhile would be the equivalent of a battle rifle or assault carbine - they have a definitive advantage over swords but are much larger and will always occupy at least one hand since you can't just strap it to yourself. (No matter how much video games insist you can.) A lot of people misunderstand this and go: _"Actually,_ swords were historically considered stupid and weak weapons for losers and the samurai totally liked the spear or the bow a lot better!" While it's true you would usually prefer a polearm on the battlefield, that doesn't mean swords weren't appreciated and used as a symbol of the warrior class: Because they were more expensive and harder to make, and warriors could carry them around even in a civilian context, they became status symbols. Basically, historical people thought swords were cool too. You just need to keep all of this in mind when deciding how warriors and soldiers would actually be armed in your setting.

For armor: I would add that Gambeson was historicaly one of the most used types of armor and are very effective (Especially against arrows and swords) and was NOT just used by the Incas and was very popular in medieval Europe and it is very correct to include it in a fantasy story because it's just made out of linen wich nearly every cultur should have acces to. (P.S. And Neuschwanstein is not a good example for defensive Castles)

Leather? Did you just say leather armour? *REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE* The most common type of armour was padded armour e.g. Gambeson. Actually really effective. Don’t have to look to the Incas too. Most of the European armies of the middles ages wore padded armour most of the time. It was really effective and relatively cheap.

Geography is also a major thing to consider; Mongolian cavalry and Greek phalanx formation-based warfare, for example, work best on an open plane, whereas elves who mostly dwell in a thick forest and mountain tribes would most definitely have a method of warfare that reflects their respective environments. It can also effect weaponry; for example, wood is harder to come by in a desert, so bows would likely be of the composite variety, made of horns and the like, while making their shields out of layers of hide and woven plant fiber, so they can prioritize using what wood they do have for arrows or spears. Also, padded armor is the most common type in the medieval period, because it was easier to make and repair. Whether or not Leather armor was actually used (at least in Europe) is a hotly contested. It would have also been harder to make than linen, so if you wanna have leather armor, you should probably justify its usage by making it clear how and why it's more effective (or perhaps more available) than a padded jack.

Watching at 11:54 Sees Codpiece "As for armor, the most important piece by far..." IS HE GOING TO SAY IT!? IS HE GOING TO TAKE THE PLUNGE!? WILL HE GRACE US WITH THE OBVIOUS JOKE HISTORY HAS PROVIDED!? "...is the helmet" No. It is not yet time. The world is not ready for such pristine humor. I move on, content with the fact that this is a good video...but always contemplating "What if?". Maybe one day we will know. But then again, some things are better off remaining mysteries.

If you have a professional army in your story, it helps to look at history, especially the Kingdoms and Empires that lasted longer. I know the Romans came up with some stuff I can barely believe. From the ability of a Legion building a fortified camp in hours, sandals nearly on the level of modern sport shoes when it comes how they distribute weigth during a march, javelins where the wooden part breaks off behind the metal so the enemy can't pick it up and throw it back to dart throwers were one dart was found to have gone through a soldier's armor and was lodged in the spine while the same darts only bruise when they hit someone with a roman armor, so turning a captured dart thrower around was next to useless unless you hit a body part without armor. SunTsu's The Art of War is still a good guide for tactics as it has been for a very long time. As for magic, as it was said, it depends on the system, but sometimes it can be more important in support roles than actually dealing damage. A few fireballs might be small change against a sudden thick fog that allows some troops to be repositioned without being seen. And again, a look at history can be interesting what crazy stuff happened. A castle defender making his men light many torches on the ramparts and throwing open the gates, daring the enemy to attack. Fearing a trap they did not attack. The castle had less then 20 men. Hannibal surrounding a larger army with his smaller one and annihilating it. Admiral Yi loosing only a few ships (if any at all) while defending his country during a japanese invasion lasting years. At one time he had 12 ships and faced 133 japanese ships, loosing not a single ship while 31 japanese vessels were sunk. And so on.

According to Ancient Chinese military theorist and general, Sun Tzu, you should never feed your army three times. The first time, you supply food from your home region. The second time, you take whatever food you need from the enemy. And by the time it comes to a third time, the war should be over.

The earth trembled beneath the raining clouds as the horde approached. Ferocious barbarians, almost more animal than the very horses they rode on came charging down the hill. Their war cries echoed through the deep valleys like it was the sound of death itself. "Hold the line!" The general called out as his supposedly brave legionares started to slowly move back out of fear they felt. Sweaty hands grabbed harder onto their spears. Hearts beat fast against the iron cheatplate, all warm inside after their long march. "Hold the line!" The general shouted once again as morale almost broke when the enemy made it's way down from the hill, now only a couple of hundreds of meters away. Foul stench of horses and bloodied men with rotten wounds now filled the air. The sounds of their barbaric cries and the hundreds of horse feet, bashing against the soil of their dear homeland was deafening. "Behind us are your homes! Behind us are your families! We protect the land our ancestors built and they will not that away from us! Today we die for our land and make our last stand!" The general made a loud speech as all his men got into formation. Suddenly all the enemy horses collapsed. Mary Sue walked up to the General with a smile on her face. "I placed small little metal spikes on the ground with my magic and the power of Tolp." And then everyone loved Mary Sue forever after and everyone lived happily in love triangles.

_Leather is shitty armor in almost all cases and those where it isn't are the crazy exceptions due to other circumstances not the rule_ , god I had hoped that misconception was dead already

"You can't just make a castle in an afternoon." You hear that, Hideyoshi? Can't be done.

The armor made of layered clothing was used in medieval europe as well and according to a certain fan of machicolations it was probably one of, if not the most, used armor during that period!

You made a Point about Bringing up weapons to destroy a Wall, One thing to remember about Big stone walls is that when you knock them down, all you've done is make a big pile of rocks which isn't that much easier to get over. Or In the Case of Japanese (And some European) Castle walls, you still have a big vertical wall of packed dirt to climb

I would not recommend to use leather armor a lot. The amount of cattle you'll have to slay in order to get armor-grade leather for an entire army is insane.

Nation's with militia often tried to curtail the decrease in quality by holding annual musters. Once a year, even in times of peace, all the men in a community who qualified to be in the militia would be required to come to a designated spot (usually a military installation like a fort) and train and drill for a weekend. Granted, this didn't completely work at maintaining quality (a lot of militiamen didn't have the necessary equipment to wage war) but it made sure the men remembered basic training and tactics should an emergency arise.

It took me a second to realize that the first map you had in the beginning was just Europe turned 90 degrees counterclockwise.

Additional note about nomadic cultures and their weapons, a lot of nomadic groups had a deep contempt for any weapon that couldn't be used for hunting, protecting their livestock or doing chores around camp. So, axes, spears, bows, lassos, bolas and bardiches would be the most common weapons with a tribal society, with maybe only the chief and his (or her) closest guards carrying swords of good quality steel/iron.

"Tribal armies are disorganised" **Mongol Horde, with its advanced tactics and better organisation than many modern armies**

12:00 Of all the medieval armor pic you can get, you pick the one with a codpiece.

You should do a crossover with “Terrible Writing Advice” or “Hello Future Me”.

some medieval militia were actually very well equipped, especially late medieval/ early renaissance "city state" militia, composed of the middle class of craftsmen, blacksmiths(sword smiths/ armor smiths) , property owners, merchants (venice?) . As these were the one wealthy enough to arm themselves in almost the same level of knights, with state of the art weapons, and at the same time have the money and time to train themselves, in fact, most fencing masters of the 15th and 16th century were these kind of middle classes. These city militia could be seen in the holy roman empire and Italian states, fighting off knights, nobles and kings. of course, there are other example of free city state militia which were not as rich, but due to danger around them, train themselves and experienced alot of fighting, such as the swiss and flanders.

remember,don't try to be perfect,no one is perfect

The Haida people in the Pacific Northwest used armor made from wood and woven redwood bark in the conflicts between themselves and colonists (and also in conflicts with other tribes pre-colonialism)

I've very much enjoyed your previous videos, and really hope for the success of your channel. These sorts of videos are really interesting and helpful, so I would just like to use our historical understanding of tribal nations to perhaps more clearly define some aspects of the beginning of the video. I'm aware these aren't 'hard and fast' rules, but (from what I understand) this is what history says. 1. Chieftains weren't usually just arbitrary charismatic people. Vercingetorix, leader of the Averni, was the son of Celtillus, also leader of the Averni. His uncle and other members of his family were also part of the ruling nobility. There was no strict succession laws (ultimate primogeniture for example) and indeed leaders' charisma would often play a part in determining a ruler, but it was usual for members of the nobility / ruling classes to be chosen as chief. 2. People were 'free' to leave the tribe but without the organised infrastructure of a state like Rome, leaving the tribe would mean almost certain death. It was dishonourable, not to mention the other factors (family, harsh winter, isolation) which would heavily deter anyone from freely being able to leave. 3. 'Tribal armies with more than a couple hundred men in size would likely be an alliance of multiple tribes' - just keep in mind Celtic armies typically numbered in the 10,000s. Roman reports put them at much higher. 4. Tribal tactics (such as that of the Suebi under Ariovistus) could be very sophisticated. For example Ariovistus used groups of 100 soldiers with cavalry behind launching small-scale hit and run attacks against Caesar. Unless their numbers were too large to coordinate, tribal tactics weren't just *run head first and hope you kill them before they kill you* Tribal societies as we know them weren't savages. They were usually fairly organised, specialised societies. They had towns, trade networks, and cultural practices that made them cohesive. These were just my thoughts to what you said in the video.

This is a really nice, extensive video, and I think it not only helps people wanting to do world building, but some historical misconceptions of war. One thing I feel like you didn't stress enough was the importance of formations, even for tribal armies. All armies fought in formation, or almost all of them, and the army that stopped fighting and routed was usually the one breaking formation. It isn't like in many fantasy work pieces where they march in formation and then charge to fight one on one duels for the remainder of the battle.

Undead, Constructs, Elementals, Divine or unholy beings. None of need food or at least not much. Also vegetarian elves would have alot of issues if they went on the planes

Three notes for people reading this: Padded linen armor is equal, if not supirior to leather, while being cheap enough that even Levy troops can usually afford it. Silk is also an extreamly effective armor against arrows and other smaller projectiles. Horses will NEVER charge head on into a wall of soldiers in formation, and espcially not a spear wall. Doing so would kill them, and no matter how well trained they are, they will stop or turn away. So the best counter to chargeing horses, is for you and your mates to stand shoulder to shoulder and call the bluff; as that's all cavalry really is to infantry; a bluff trying to make you scatter and run. Battles very rearely involve fighting to the bitter end. Most of the tem an army will flee prematurely to avoid being completely destroyed, exception of course being for last stands. When plotting out a battle consider what things could happen that would cause the enemy to consider cutting their loses and fleeing the field. Also one last point to that. Normally when an army routes, the back line are the ones to go first, as they are the ones seeing the battle going south. The soldiers in the front are normally to busy fighting the people in front of them to notice they're being encircled.

An undead army really is superior in every way. No food, no worries about lack of following instructions, and after every battle, your army only ever grows. Also, I only ever see caltrops used in media in the context of ninjas.

I find it interesting that you talk about Incan gambesons as if they're something completely unique. Gambesons were dominant in Feudal Europe because linen was easy to produce. Everyone was using them. Even the knights wore them under their mail or plate because they provided nice padding to keep the armour from scraping their skin.

4:14 Well, no. Some basic formations like a _tela_ for the Italian tribes (loose formation of javelineers with big shields), a _Keilerkopf_ or _svinfylking_ for the Germanic ones (wedge-like attack formation with warchief on the tip of the wedge leading his shield wall behind him) or just a basic shield wall can be maintained on this level of organization. Manoeuvres, however, are the tricky part, and that's where the more professional armies shine. 5:12 In fact, *most* of them. It's no wonder why feudal systems emerged in all those different regions of the world - to compensate for the lack of funds to spend on professional standing army. 5:22 I don't think you can really say that all militias had only basic training. E.g., take a look at the hoplites of some Greek polis. They mostly came from well-off families, were trained in martial arts from the young age and were led by nobles, who, in turn, were likely career mercenary officers before they got into prominent enough position in their own city. 14:35 One, however, should also take into account the behaviour of the mount in question. You'll have a hard time getting into close combat on the camel's back, given the relative lack of combat spirit inherent to this species.

This video expanded my magic system IMMENSELY. I’ve been stuck on it for YEARS, thank you so much!! Great job!

You explain easily, go quickly through it all and you also explain the important parts so you actually understand the points. You my friend, have gotten yourself a subscriber

Upvote for caltrops. But you didn't mention slings.

Padded cloth armor was basicly used the most. Even a knight with chain mail or Plate would have padded cloth under. Cloth armor was used by mostly all, not only common soldiers, look at the gambeson. One of my personal favorite armors are wood armor.

I used to use caltrops in DnD during camping scenes and in dungeons. It was fun listening to Drow swearing at the PCs as they ran over the caltrops whilst chasing us through the caverns.

3:15 Exception: The Mongols.

Start with part 6 and see how it would effect strategy before you build the army. If you have fireball shooting wizards on hipogrifs, then you have an airforce, and medieval warfare goes out the window.

"Unless you create a race of walking plant people that get sustenance from the sun".......You mean like Knights of Sidonia?

Slight pet peeve with when you group shields into the armour category. Shields are weapons, defencive weapons, but weapons. Yes, the basic of a shield is just hold it in front of yourself but one can go into so much detail with how to wield a shield that it's several days of videos worth of knowledge of what i know only partly. But in truth, most of the fancy shield stuff is mostly useful in duels, in a field battle sticking it in front of you goes a long way. The size of shield is also very important regarding tactics. The roman scutum is way different in use and deployment than a buckler. Material, type and prevalence is important to consider. But as a general rule, as armour tech/commonality goes up, shields become smaller and rarer. Anyway, rant over. This is a good video, goes over the basics and gets one thinking. I was already doing all these but it's still informative and enjoyable to watch.

Great video. Lots of good information delivered in a clear and concise manner. One thing I would add about the rules of war though. If a castle or fortified city was called upon to surrender, it was almost universally accepted that they had until the first siege weapon touched the walls. If they surrendered before that, honour dictated that they should be treated with leniency. If the fortifications had to be stormed or taken by stealth or treachery, then it was tacitly agreed by all sides that the victor could do whatever they wanted to the vanquished. This is one of the reasons the Mongols were so feared. They often massacred civilians of a city that had surrendered. Or they would use them as forced labour or cannon fodder in the next battle.

“One of those weirdos who makes worlds for fun” I feel personally attacked

Great video, just wanted to point out leather armor was very rare in history and usually made into leather scale-armor rather than just a thick leather breast plate. Very small nit-pic

You: Swords are not the primary weapon of many pre-modern army Roman Army post-Phalanx Era: *Throws Spears and fights with Swords*

All you have to do is look at Warhammer Fantasy.

Your channel is a hidden gem and I'm glad you exist.

Thanks to my childhood of playing Total War games, I ended up thinking about half of the stuff you brought up, and people said I overthink my fantasy world lol. But yeah, you're right, it's important to make a believable world, you can build a lot of stories for them. The one I'm working on has my empire able to provide swords & heavy armors to their soldiers because they monopolize the economy of the entire continent & they own all the major mines. They supplement what they lack via mercenary companies or demanding local garrison to train specific troops for that campaign. The mercs & these temporary soldiers are obviously using lighter armor & specific types of weapons, but they are made to compliment the core troops. I tried to keep magic as some sort of major events or exclusively for the "bad" guy. But yeah, it's a lot of fun trying to make everything believable.

Regarding fortifications: Keep in mind that, with rare exceptions, both sides should always want to have fortifications and should never want to attack them. While during a war or campaign fortresses and castles might see a lot of use, most should rarely see battle since their entire purpose is to make attacking them a really bad idea. Now I'm not saying you shouldn't siege battles or have an army fortify it's position and make a heroic stand to rival the battle of Agincourt, but just keep in mind that there should be some reason for the attacker to attack anyway despite their foes' fortifications. *I realized my post was getting long, so I"ll just point out that the paragraphs below are mostly just examples of reasons to attack or forego fortifications* Are the defenders expecting reinforcements forcing the attackers to strike swiftly? Does the location of the fortifications make it (nearly) impossible for the attackers to achieve their goals without overcoming them? Do the defenders have a large enough force that they would pose a serious threat if you left them and went for easier targets, exposing your flank to them in the proces? Are the attackers some kind of mindless (possibly undead) horde that have no care for the losses they would suffer during a siege? Do the attackers simply underestimate the fortifications like they did at Agincourt? Conversely, if they battle in the open, give a reason why neither side used fortifications. For the attackers this reason should be obvious, they can't achieve their goals without leaving the safety of their own fortifications back home and marching into foreign territory. The defenders still need a reason to face the attackers in the open field however. The most common reason would be that hiding inside a castle or something would give the invaders free rein to plunder the surrounding lands and villages. Otherwise the attackers might be expecting reinforcements forcing the defenders to strike before they can unite. Perhaps there is civil unrest and commander of the defenders (possibly the ruling monarch himself) needs this battle to win the favour of their countrymen/citizens. When people ask "Why didn't they just hide behind their walls and force the attackers to come to them?" the answer should be akin to "Because they couldn't force the attackers to come to them" *And the actual post continues* Just remember, nobody would want to fight a battle if they expect to lose it. So both sides need to A: Have little to no choice in the matter, or B: Believe they stand a good chance at winning. Naturaly it would most often be option A for the defenders and option B for the attackers, but they might be reversed, both sides might be forced, or they might both believe they stand a better chance than their opponent, though that last option should usually be attributed to limmited intel, as it would be highly unlikely for two opposing commanders to reach such vastly different conclusions if they could both see the full picture. Any of these reasons and many more might suffice. Just make sure your audience doesn't go "Why didn't they just (insert obvious tactic here)" without having an answer ready. Of course, incompetent commanders obviously do exist and even skilled commanders might make plenty of mistakes in the heat of war, but only a huge fool would position their immobile siege weaponry in front of all his fortifications without any protection. tl'dr: Both side would want any advantage they can get, so whenever they lack a certain advantage (fortifications) it should be because they *can't* get it.

Actually, the thick linen armour was also used in europe, and is called gambesone and it was much more prevalent than any leather protection

Imagine the army organization of non-humans that not only utilize their fallen dead as a means of food, but equipment and weapons as well. (E.g. Orc/Goblin/Troll-like tribesmen that not only breed fast, but are also cannibals and do not have honor or similar. They will use the bones of not just their dead but even foes as spears, arrows, or even clubs, then sprinkle a dash of creativity, magic, some mystic mumbo jumbo and, boom, trebuchets with disease-ridden corpse ammo and undead zombies/summoned spirits of fallen warriors to aide in the never ending assault on their puny enemies. Only thing missing now is some evil warlord or dark lord and you have an Undead Horde that don't stop for nothing.)

Speaking of using axes and maces instead of swords, there's also the question of utility. Tribal warriors and militia often used the same or similar knives, axes, and hammers in battle as they did during their daily lives at home because you could use these as tools for any number of trades and tasks during peacetime. Swords, spears, bows, and a few other weapons are tools made specifically for killing, so their utility in non-battle situations is limited almost exclusively to hunting, self-defense, or decoration.

I'd like to point out no matter how logical/realistic you make your setting, there will always be someone to nitpick it apart. That is not wrong - after all, this is a community about picking settings apart - just be prepared your work most definitely won't be found flawless ubiquitously.

Also people should keep in mind how certain tactics would change when you add elements such as magic or flying units. For example if in my setting magic can be utilized as a form of artillery with large fireballs and equivalently destructive effects then maybe walls are less prominent or are made out of a material that can take the magical effects, or the walls might be magically protected by things ect.

Swords were also considered a sign of extreme wealth. At least in tribal Europe. Swords were very expensive and as you said required training to use effectively.

An interesting use of the dynamics between militias and professional armies can be seen in Warhammer Fantasy. Dwraves and Elves mostly utilize militia troops, because with their low populations they can't afford to field big armies all year round. Meanwhile, the main human faction of the setting relies on professional soldiers. This allows to, for the most part, avoid the disparity in the skill level of average soldiers, since elven and dwarven lifespan mean their militia troops get a lot of experience.

James Tullos: LeAtHeR aRmOr! Shadiversity fans: allow us to introduce ourselves.

In short: Base it off of historical armies as a base, then consider how the changes in your world over reality would affect them and add or take away accordingly.

4:42 "Battle of a disorganized army is the only time..." So, basically most units in actual combat, after the first few minutes. With practice, formations are easy enough to maintain - that is, until the enemy hits you or makes a clear enough attempt of doing so. Metatron has a nice video about the subject, I think...

Already had the caltrops in my story, prepared food, but the raid traveling to the volcanic land to kill the dragon -never thought about the horses needing food. 🤦🏻‍♀️ Good point

This was a great video! I like the positive spin and how much thought you put into it

Historically, shields weren't really used much for defense in melee. They were used as a defense against *arrows*, but in melee they're equally suited to defense and offense.

My Take on my Fantasy Army 1. Organization Basically a citizen Militia that already have the right Culture. Schools for all Class of citizen have the "Military" Lesson, where the Student will train in basic combat and discipline. Basically if you attack a town of this Fantasy nation, just prepare that all the citizen inside can quickly be formed into soldiers(Even the Female, they're Egalitarian). 1,5. Food & Supply These Army has a Specialized Unit that deal with the Supplies, they're like a Cavalry unit that can buy or stole supplies from nearby towns, and some of these Elite unit even grow their food on the march(Mobile Farms). 2. Arms and Armor For their Weapons they have quite an innovation to begin with. For Starters their "Sword" blade can be detached from the hilt, meaning that a Soldier can carry at least more than 1 Sword Blade. Their Spear is more like the Japanese Yari, a short blade on a staff, it's cheap and can be used to slash, but not too often. Their Armor is defined by their Ranks: -Their Regular Soldiers are often just armored with a Gambeson alike vest, and a Kite Shield. -Their Veteran Soldiers have Chestplate, and keeping the Gambeson, also they use a Scutum like shield -Their Elite Soldiers wore Partial plates, and a Thyreos Shield 3. Cavalry Their Cavalry uses the same as their Foot Soldiers, only that a wealthy Citizen can afford horses and serve as a Cavalry, their Equipment depend on what Class of these Cavalrymen and their Horses are, Big Old Heavy Horse are more useful as a Heavy Cavalry, Lighter Younger Horses are more suited as a Light Cavalry. 4. Fortifications they build castles, but depending on the lords the castles can be different from one or the other. Some Castles is more specialized in being surrounded, basically already having a farm or other stuff that can grow food inside the castle. Other Castle is just asking to be attacked and then only for the attacker to realize there's more Soldier in the castle which will ambush them inside the castle. 5. Laws of War This Fantasy Nation is actually divided into 4 Nations(White,Black,Grey,and Blue) Lets say that the White, Grey and Blue ones abide the Rules of war. But the Black are different, if you fight honorably, they will take care of the prisoners, and release them, but if you're a Warmongering Fuckboy who fight dirty, and the biggest offense to them "Rape and Kill prisoners"(Remember, they're Egalitarian), once they Conquer your city, they will round up all the non combatants(Civilians,Children and Old Folks)in the town square surrounded by a makeshift wall, and shot them one by one, but the Shooter will make sure they always hit the head, just to reduce the Pain a little. 6. Magic Some Attack Magic were not really used, due to the Nation Defensive Nature, they use more Healing and Anti Magic Barrier, and they might not even study Attack magic.

Swords are actully very useful for an infantry force, the Roman legionaries used swords over spears because they fought very close quarters where the advantage of a spear line would fall apart

Brilliant analysis! Love it!!🎉

Point to mention many Greeks in militias were rich Greeks who would train for example Sparta being built on slavery they had time to educate, think and train

"One of those weirdos who just makes worlds for fun." Never before have I been so offended by something I 100% do all the time.

This channel proves that anal-attentive readers, analysts, etc. will break down a fantasy world's plot holes or illogical things. I love it!

Quick observation from your guidelines Carnivorous Orcs are always depicted as the horrific pillagers and ...sure, they may well be brutal regardless, but for agricultural communities in the path of an army it's the vegetarian Elves which would be most inclined to steal crops and might be so dependent on them as to need to clear the region and slaughter the farmers rather than try to purchase supplies that the community couldn't possibly afford to part with. The Orcs might have a cultural disposition toward pillaging, but why should that be the case if their diet eschews the primary output of most villages? It could be interesting to see a Tolkeinesque setting where Orcish warbands are seen as a dangerous nuisance that endangers the deer and rabbits, but the glittering Elvish legions drive hordes of refugees for miles ahead of their ravenous columns

That point about swords just goes to show how effective training was for the romans there’s nothing else that would attribute that much success

For good measure, also read Sun Tsu's The Art of War. It helps with tactics, strategy, terrain, and so on. It encourages the reader to play it smart if they must send men into battle and how to outmaneuver your enemy's forces. One cool example: a besieged army was out of arrows, so they whipped up straw dummies to lower down the walls to lure the enemy to shoot them, thus collecting the arrows and using them against the enemy, leaving them none the wiser.

I love this, its so useful! Im glad to say I've included Caltrops in my WIP

looking forward to the continuation of this new series. I'll definitely be taking that caltrop advice, thanks!

I love to make worlds for fun! :D

There are a few more aspects to mention about militia, like the fact that campaigns wouldn't extend for long as they needed to be back home for harvest, and such. I recomend reading Adam Smith's wealth of nations book 5, first chapter. It tackles down this subject and explains the advantages and dissavantages of each kind of army from an economic view but to do so he explains how they are composed and the differences btw each kind. And if you are into it, I highly recomend reading it whole (wealth of the nations) as it's an amazing insight in the history of civilization. How and why did we organized in the ways we did and what moves society forward. Even if you don't agree with his economic views. It's amazing how much you learn from it of how societies worked in the past

15:49 relic of the first legos ever created, 14th century A.D.

Good stuff mate, would love to see a guide on scifi universe building.

1. Most important part of 'Armor' would be for the torso, not the head. 2."Thick Leather Armor" is not a thing as was not used. 3.Catapults were not used to destroy walls. But apart from these, I did find some useful information in this video. Thank you.

I'm sorry, but there are way more than 3 categories of army. You didn't even mention mercenary armies. Also, Genghis Kahn, Arminius, and Khalid bin Walid all led tribal peoples and were able to implement complex tactics.

I was struggling on this short story I was writing for my friend because I have 0 idea of worldbuilding and I thought to check out your divergent worldbuilding video. i didn't know you had this series as well and it's super helpful! thank you!

I agree that a full army wouldn’t be outfitted in plate armor but chainmail is easily the most common type of armor ever (at least in Europe and the Middle East) and wouldn’t be too expensive to maintain.

I'm really excited for this series. I only wish I had this when I started making my world which currently has a couple issues.

The Skirmishers such as bowmen, slingers (or hand gonners) & shield mages are the first to engage. When the enemy is soften up the heavier infantry such as Pikemen & phalanx will enter. While engaged the Dragon Lancers will come around the flanks. During the dragon lance combat the Skirmishers who retreated behind the pikemen will not sit there and do nothing but will pick off any enemy dragons in the sky or act as anti cavalry unit. Tamable Dragons are like half the size of a WW1 fighter plane and don’t fly as high because of the weight of the rider & armor. Plus the Castles are armed with archers & the tile roofs will flip revealing spikes that could be lethal. Complex but that’s my ideal battle formation. But if I were to make magic it would be common and come directly from the caster. It will require muscular & cardio endurance. So much so that casting too many fireballs will eventually make you pass out from exhaustion.

This is so handy, I actually starter remaking some aspects of my fantasy world after I 1st bumped into this channel. Keep up the great work man!

To add on to this: Pre-gunpowder battles were very rarely mutual slaughters. Both sides fight it out at first, and relatively few are killed in this phase. Once one side broke and ran, the cavalry would pursue them and that is when the greatest killing would happen. Nobody will stick around until the last soldier is killed. Hence morale being the deciding factor. Humans do not want to die and always worry about their life. The Spartans have sent more than one enemy army running without a fight by their reputation alone, as their enemies did not believe they could win. The formation in lines is a morale booster more than anything. More people to your left and right and behind you gives confidence to fight on, knowing someone has your back. If you introduced magic, could it make people fearless? If so, would a formation in line still be necessary? If magic can kill at the rate of muskets and cannon, or even surpassing it, armies should not remain medieval in tactics and formation. I highly recommend you read part one of this book: www.gutenberg.org/files/7294/7294-h/7294-h.htm#link2H_PART It covers the role of morale in ancient battles and gives a great sense of how battle went. Of course, ignore it if it doesn't fit your story. This is fiction after all!

Great guidelines, clearly articulated. Gave me some interesting ideas for my fantasy RPGing and fiction. Appreciated!

"... or one of those weirdos who just makes worlds for fun." EXCUSE MEEEEEEEEE! How dare you!? lol Love this series btw

I agree with the non-destructive magic part, that it could be used to give armies advantages even greater than a wizard who chucks fireball about. Imagine a wizard who could get an eye of everything going on in the battlefield and being able to telepathically communicate with groups of troops. This would allow armies to strategise and organise in a way that real life armies of the time would be simply incapable of.

fucking europe turned on its side in the beginning, absolutely hilarious.

Elves - "Shit!. There's no trees!." Dwarfs - "Where's the target at?. Fuck that, that's too far!." Orcs - "Ummm, screw this. They can have their damn sands!." Humans - "Feels like home!."

A note on tribal armies. In tribes, chieftains didn't have power as we understand today, they couldn't control the people... in peacetime. But in times of war all followed the chieftain with modern discipline. In wartime chieftains received military power and were followed and obbeyed as such.

Note that there are chiefdoms as well. These are between tribal societies and nations organization-wise. The main difference between chiefdoms and nations is nations have a bureaucratic system to some degree. A king may set up courts and tax collectors. They may place their friends in positions of power (perhaps how noble houses form) but at least some of those positions of power are paid for by the state’s coffers rather than the rulers own pocket. (Though the level of bureaucracy can be weak enough that the noble houses or political appointees are expected to staff their organizations out of their own pocket. Rome actual sold the rights to collect taxes so tax collectors would buy the rights to tax a region in an auction, pay the government up front and then spend the season collecting taxes. If they could collect more than they paid they made money. ) Chieftains rule by collecting the loot and redistributing it back to their followers. The states does not usually have its own treasury. They usually have a band of warriors that are sworn to them. These warriors may be loyal to the chief, the clan/tribe or just stick around because the chief tends to win and that means more loot. This is a stage of government that historically developed into The feudal medieval european societies. The vikings and most of europe all were chiefdoms (or tribes) at some point. Also note that they very much can have agriculture. The warband likely evolved into the concept of nobility. Loyal men who train their sons to fight for the chief (and then the state when it transitions from chiefdom to nation). In return the new nobles get trade rights and land. The nobles would be retired warband member who have proven loyal through decades of combat and the leader reeeeally trusts. Or perhaps the leader doesn’t trust all the nobles but cannot outright kill someone with 20years dedicated service without a good excuse. (To do so would hurt the trust that keeps the warband loyal.) Eventually that can evolve into a system where wealthy families created by former warband members send sons to the chieftain (partly as hostage and partly for war training) while keeping their own small warband. Perhaps each wealthy warrior rules over land as a chief and they elect a chief among chiefs to organize the warbands into an army if any one member is attacked. At that point the chieftain is a king with nobles vassals an the society is edging closer to a nation. Add warhorses and you have nights. We tend to think of chiefdom societies as violent Barbarians mostly because of historians bias against the Vikings. (The people writing about the attacks tended to be the monks who were attacked. At the same time the raiders were the last stronghold of an opposing religion so they got demonized heavily.) These societies do tend to be pretty warlike. They often develop feudal relationships based on someone coming to power and dividing all the land they conquered in their lifetime between 3 sons of varying ambition and skill. However, the societies are often very sophisticated. The vikings were certainly warlike but the hit and run tactics showed amazing discipline along with an ability to gather information- both on the terrain and from trade. But war is not the entirety of a barbarian’s culture. THIS IS A COMMON MISTAKE OF FANTASY WRITERS. People seek entertainment. The ancient greeks may have had elaborate plays and gladiatorial games put on by their centralized government. Chiefdoms lack the same central power structure for that. Instead, Poetry and storytelling became a renowned art during the long winter months. Japan is also known for its poetry and art, and the region also went through a very feudal period. (The boundary between fuedalism and chiefdoms can be a bit murky. Chiefdoms are argued to be a transistion period for a society. I highly recommend “Guns, Germs and Steel” for more info on societies- or for anyone who wants to world build any medieval culture.) The vikings were known for extensive trade routes, advanced shipbuilding technology and obsessive cleanliness (beard trimming tools were common in grave sites, public bath houses existed and they had a day of the week named after bathing.) They also had their own writing system, democratically elected leaders (from the wealthier classes since I don’t think the state had a separate treasury), and an extensive legal system detailing what was considered a crime. (Watch the first 1-2 episodes of History’s Vikings. The show changes the dates of events by centuries but that first episode or two really give the right feel to how the legal system worked- and sometimes didn’t work.) Most serious crimes would be punished with outlawry. Outlawry is classifying someone as no longer being part of the society. This is important because not being part of a society means that if someone kills or robs you that society does not care. Essentially, in the eyes of the law they are no longer people. This also means that if you are declared outlaw anyone who dislikes you- or your family- can kill you without legal repercussions. In fact, since chiefdoms do not have police forces ( a state bureaucracy), ordinary citizens are encouraged to kill outlaws on sight. This lack of police force likely leads to relatively militant citizenship. This is extremely important in understanding the concept of “honor”. If a wanderer comes into town one morning there is no central organization to post wanted posters. He could have kidnapped a dozen children 3 towns over and no one would know. This stranger could be a dangerous threat. But he could also be an upstanding citizen visiting his mother in the next town over. Killing the first is encouraged but killing the second could start a feud or even war with the next town over (depending on how connected his mother is). Belonging to a town or clan can keep you safe when traveling to a neighboring town as they wouldn’t want to kill you and start a feud. But how do you know who the traveler is? Honor is simply a man’s reputation. Reputations could be individual or family based. Everyone would have a reputation within their hometown. But traveling they would rely on social contacts and their families reputation. Think Game of Thrones; “a Lannister always pays his debts”. That phrase was a well known reputation that characters were able to cash in. They could promise reward without having any money on them because their families reputation was essentially currency. Now in fantasy we see a lot of “warrior code” honor systems, some of which are better done then others. When creating one of these think about why and how they formed. A strict code of behavior for some sort of undisciplined barbarian doesn’t make much sense, right? That’s because the warrior codes apply to two groups; 1. Those trying to protect their land from neighbors and outlaws 2. Those trying to join a chief’s warband (Perhaps even far away from their home). Note that none of these fit the unthinking barbarian stereotype. Thats because thats stereotype is bullshit. The first group is the general populous. They need their honor so that people will believe that a business transaction with them will be taken seriously and so that the family looks tough even that people don’t go out of their way to attack them. If you look like an easy target in a society with no police force you tend to die fast. The second group needs to convince someone of high status that they are either really loyal- so perhaps come from a noble family loyal to that lord- or are just so damned badass a fighter that its worth paying them just so no one pays them to fight against you. If their reputation is as a fierce enough fighter maybe the lord pays them more- or accepts them into the warband without a bunch of stupid fetch quests first. So honor really does boil down to self defense and reliability of business transactions. If you are interested look into the Great Danish Army. I highly recommend watching the Extra History videos on the first crusades for group dynamics of multiple leaders running one army. More organized forces did use 1 on 1 combat between heros to settle conflict some times. This was often a morale strategy. Often the side who saw their hero lose would lose heart and flee the field first. This could be a way of preventing casualties when neither side really wants to lose men (popular among armies made mostly of farmers) However, it could also be a great way to settle a siege. Often, besiegers would offer a town the chance to surrender and if they do not surrender then and are instead overrun every single women, man, and child are killed when the town is taken. If even ordered not to massacre the townsfolk, starving soldiers who just watched boiling oil be poured on their friends tend to have little mercy for the townsfolk who get in their way. But to surrender without a fight makes the leader look like a coward. What if help arrived the next day and he had already surrendered? He might no longer be in charge of that town. So negotiating a single combat in a day or three is a great way to buy some time or perhaps get some better terms of surrender.

The question of non-combat military applications of magic* is pretty central to my conception of one of the major nations of my setting: *or sufficiently advanced technology The Oslint Principalities have taken a drastically different approach to salvaging Forebear technology. They have not practiced a thousand strikes once, but rather a single strike a thousand times. They have revived a nanoforge that will synthesize drones for them on demand, and they have managed to create numerous replicates of that nanoforge. As such: 1) Their armies on average have better reconnaissance and communication, but moreover - they are much more consistent in their abilities. 2) They're less hodgepodge in their deployment of Forebear technology, so it's easier to establish basic training - less variety means they can better train their basic footsoldiers to work with a few established strategies rather than hundreds of unique "heroes." This would put Oslint at a major advantage if they didn't trend more isolationist than expansionist.

I was amazed that I managed to tick all the boxes from the video, in my world. Guess I'm a fan :D

So many people just ignore magic's implications on war entirely. It's not at all a waste of lives and resources equipping soldiers for melee combat when they can easily be roasted by fireballs from the top of a hill, is it? And the .05% of our population making up our entire army can't be *completely* replaced by members of the 1/4 of our population with magical potential. Not at all. And I know we have a limitless amount of magical fire which we can use to turn that castle over there into a giant oven from a safe distance, but that's not as much fun as directly assaulting the main gate! We need spies too, because peeping on our enemies from above for direct information just isn't fair. But most important of all, we still need to *treat the wounded with bandages.* Can't let the peg leg industry go out of business, can we? Gotta sweep that regeneration spell under the rug.