Using Slums As A Military Defense

Arrows are cheap. Bows are the Peasant weapon. War of the Flea: drop rocks on invading archers, steal their arrows: modern guerilla war, drop rocks on soldiers, steal their rifles and ammo.

Anyone can shoot a short bow, it has 25lb draw (100 Newton), it only works at short range and fits the scenario.

Longbow has 100 lb draw (400 Newton), it has longer range, but it requires professional training.

Anyone can use a crossbow, just keep dropping those rocks guys and steal them from the Invaders.

Leningrad and Stalingrad DON'T fit the scenario. Nazis v Red Army = professional soldiers versus Workers' Militia * weight of numbers.

Street gangs * weight of numbers * home turf bonus easily beats feudal levies and easily loses versus professional soldiers.

War by War, invading armies get more professional.

War by War, street gangs who are more militia-ish survive.

@Bel: Stalingrad had a decently sized Red Army presence. The Germans were not able to simply surround it because of the Red Army presence. It didn't help that the Soviets poured reinforcements into that area to tie the Germans down further. The Red Army was heavily supplimented with volunteers, draftees, and guerilla fighters in the city. Leningrad spent spent a long time surrounded by the German armies until the Soviets established a small breakthrough and narrow supply corridor in 1943 withe the siege being lifted in 1944.

Neither city had their military presence stamped out and had a fairly large number of fighters from cities populations participating in the warfare. Partisan groups frequently could move through the city more freely then the Red Army and wreaked havoc on the German rear sections and supply lines.

France had very heavy guerilla fighter and commando presence through out the war.

Everything I have stated still stands and is recorded and noted through out the history of fighting in cities. Urban combat whether modern or medieval is violent, hard, and costly. It is consistently the most costly for attackers.

Bows do work against metal armor there is plenty of historical evidence to that. Not all metal armor is plate or even quality armor. Cheap mass produced "munition quality" armor was very common. Frequently made of low quality and/or cheaper metals and their production was not as careful as with more expesnive armor worn by knights. They were mass produced as cheaply as possible to equip large numbers of foot troops.

Also not all foot troops wear metal armor even fewere ever wore complete armor as maddy pointed out. Even full plate doesn't give absolute coverage. There are gaps, spaces, and openings which are a necessity for movement and getting into armor.

The accounts from places like Agincourt pointed out metal armor could be defeated by self bows wielded by peasantry. Only the wealthy knights in the front line were relatively safe from the arrows because they could afford the well made quality steel armor. Everyone else had to make do with low quality steel and even iron plate armor. The more poor knights further back in the line suffered numerous casualities including an account of one knight pinned to his saddle by an arrow that had passed through both of his armored legs at the thigh.

I did note amateur bowman. I no where said they were professional. You can train an amateur bowman who can participate in massed or volley fire in a couple of weeks tops. You don't have to be a skilled archer to kill foot troops or horses of cavalry. The vast majority of archery in medieval warfare is massed fire on an area target. The only time you need skilled archers is for point target shooting.

Used in Guerilla style street ambushes you just fire into the densely packed mass of troops that will have their formations funneled by the streets and you will likely hit someone. The ambushers then run off into the maze of streets. You can fire two or three arrows from multiple sides from multiple buildings at the same mass of troops and then run off. By the time the enemy sort themselves out their attackers are likely long gone.

Metal is cheap and easy to come by for arrows. You don't need high quality metal and you don't need a lot of it for arrow heads. Tool metal or even pot metals work just fine for arrowheads.

On the flip side if you want armor that is effectively impervious to arrows, you not only need a lot of material, you need quality material, and the pieces to be crafted by reasonably skilled smiths.

Arrow heads are little more then mass produced blanks that have points and edges ground into them.

Maddy also has good point. Arrowhead blanks are very easy to make from scrap materials. Things like spoons, nails, small knives, or even loosely arrowhead shaped materials can be made into arrow heads with relative ease.

There are tribes in Africa who make simple arrow heads out of nails and small surprisingly effective self bows out of wood and springs.

Mass producing arrows is very easy to do. Same for most self bows. Even the long bow was fairly easy to mass produce compared to laminate bows.

@jaq: They do fit. A large number of the fighters in the cities weren't professional Red Army soldiers but were residents of the city itself. They wound up rolled into the Red Army in the long run but before that they had little choice but either hide, fight, or somehow try to avoid dying in the fighting.

Quie a few chose to fight and received no official training or direction other then how to fire their guns. A large amount of adhoc warfare happened in the cities. Stalingrad had quite a few partisan fighter groups loosely supplied by the red army but it was pretty common for them to loot from Germans they had killed or ambushed.

Longbows were also a peasant weapon. They were made, kept, and used on a regular basis by the peasantry. The large number of English Longbow archers were peasant draftees not professional military. The peasants used the bows in their daily lives for hunting, fending off bandits, dealing with problem animals, for practice and competition, and of course for war. Basically the longbow is the equivilent to the American Frontier Flint Lock Musket Rifle.

The English military system for a long time relied on mostly armies comprised of peasants led by knights and smaller contingents of professional soldiers and mercenaries. The peasants often trained on their own and owned their own weapons.

Peasant militias were common way to deal with bandits and highway men or small raids and incursions. Armies take a fairly long time to mobilize in medieval times and many peasant towns had their own militia who would do occasional training.

Something else i forgot to mention. When attacking and clearing built up areas you are not only going to take more casualties you need two to three times as many troops as you would for purpose made foritifications and natural terrain.

Crossbows can be powerful and accurate but the catch is this. The ones that are easily portable and usuable in the field and also the most commonly found on mobile foot troops, are not the most powerful or long ranged version of crossbows. Crossbows also take longer to fire each shot. They were comprable to the common shortbow but were easier to aim and train troops to use. They would be decent urban weapons to a point.

Until you start getting into the large windlass and crank operated crossbows commonly found with troops on wall top fortifications you don't see serious power or range from crossbows.

If you are gong to be throwing things from the roof tops don't just use rocks. Use logs and large timbers, pots of human waste, heated oil, boiling water, incendiary weapons, heated sand or gravel.

When defending against siegers it was common to drop whatever was heavy and handy on the attackers. Large timbers and logs could easily hit and injure or kill several attackers at once. Even flinging down burning bales of hay over the wall sometimes coated in pitch, tar, or oil provided light and a handy incendiary weapon on the way down.

Booby traps, blocked off alleys, and other dirty tricks can also be utilized effectively and easily from materials on hand.

It is also quite possible for the gangs to work together in the face of a common enemy who will likely seek to deliberately, or by their very presence and actions, upset their status quo. So a even loosely organized insurgency of the various gangs is a real possibility. Now it may not be perfect and some may says to hell with that doesn't mean there won't be organized gang groups working together.

They don't have to have military grade training and weapons to be dangerous and effective. Chances are also good the city won't just sit on it's ass. If your being sieged you want that to end. It disrupts trade, supply intake, and causes other problems. It is likely they will be firing and attacking back from their wall tops.

Sallies made from guarded entrances are possible. If the city has a sea side connection and they can maintain control of their port they can move troops, supplies, and other things between the city and the port proper.

There is a lot that can be done with the general story idea of the gangs assisting the city.

I am guessing from the sound of things that the gangs are less random band of generic thugs and more like organized groups and organized crime entities. Especially if they are enforcing and maintaining order in their controlled segments of the outer slum city.

One other point to consider is how the attacking army feels about collateral casualties. The slums won't be populated only by the gang members, and clearing a built-up area house to house has to be done very differently if the attacking army has any compunction at all about killing women, children, the elderly and suchlike than if they don't. And if the attackers are completely willing to wipe out everyone to clear a block, they have very stupid leaders. Nothing will rile up all the slum-dwellers faster than a massacre of non-combatants.

edited 20th Nov '13 6:46:26 PM by Madrugada

Its a large slum with a lot of diverse communities, so the street gangs vary a lot. Some gang members are just regular folk who like throwing their weight around, while others are essentially small-scale warlords. However, an invading army doesn't just appear overnight. Even the smaller, less organized gangs are gonna try getting themselves in shape if they know a big fight is coming.

That said, I'm not so sure about the use of bows. They may have been a common peasant weapon, but my understanding was that they were more of a rural thing than an urban thing; firing arrows in cramped, urban confines seems like it'd be pretty dangerous.

Which is why you fire from buildings into enemies in the street. Also short or small bows would work just fine.

Oh, I'm not saying bows wouldn't be useful in defending against an invasion. But before an invading army shows up and crosses the Godzilla Threshold, how many city-dwellers would really have much use for a bow and arrow. Even in the violent slum areas, I don't think that's something most people would have just lying around.

^ Unlike firearms however, bows are readily producible. You might not get artisan quality with a peasant made short bow but you can get something that will at least fire an arrow at an enemy.

If I were going to take said city, first thing I'd do is establish contact with the slums before my army even arrives with lots of gold. I'd then bribe the gang leaders with money or promises of looting when the time arrives if they can clear the street or even sabotage the gates or actual defenses. If they are used as poor labor, I might also induce them to smuggle my own operatives into the city proper. If I have the resources, I'd do my best to arm them and let any who are so violently inclined to take the first strike at the city's defenses. If they did well, I'd elevate a few of their leaders as a show of my generosity and a threat to the city elite that if they didn't surrender quickly, I'd be replacing them with my own aristocracy.

If the poor were too loyal, disorganized, or stupid to play along, I'd set up a siege. Oh, not to starve out the city. I know that's not going to happen. No. Starve out the slums. If the city wants a rabble defense then they're going to have to feed the rabble. That should be quite a higher challenge than simply feeding the city itself. I'd also send envoys and diplomats to wherever the city is buying their food and try to get them to stop, or failing that, jack up the price so the city has to go farther afield for food. Eventually either their money runs out (Unfortunate if my goal is pillage, but you said the goal is capture), or their food runs out. Then it's simple attrition and negotiation: surrender and keep something, or don't and lose everything. Mean while, I'd have sapper teams using the slums for cover, digging in routes under the city walls for the event that I have to take the city by force. Oh. And I'd 'conscript' a few slummers and a trebuchet or two to lob the dead corpses into the city. They are 'citizens' after all.

One of the selling points of plate armor is that you can't practically penetrate it without specialized weapons. Yes, you can put an arrow through the visor or into the armpit but that's a one in a million shot, often literally as tens of thousands of archers loosed hundreds of shots. Only an elite archer at close range can pierce munitions grade plate.

However, if a man has such skill as an archer, then he'd be hired by a mercenary army and move out of the slums.

Overall, the gangs of the slums just don't have the weapons or the training to stand up to actual soldiers. They can't pierce the invader's armor so they have to go for the weakpoints while their foes can hit them anywhere they want. They're often starved or disease ridden so they don't have the stamina of a well fed knight or highly paid mercenary. They aren't trained or battle hardened so warfare on this scale disorients them. Their leaders aren't educated in tactics or strategy while the invaders have studied warfare for their entire lives. Their discipline is pitiful, so the gangs are as likely to run right into an ambush as flee at the first sign of defeat.

@Tuefel

Everything but the main thrust of my argument in the fact that Stalingrad was when the german army picked up the idiot ball. They charged into the city and seized control of the streets but not the buildings. This is probably the last thing you want to do in urban warfare. Twentieth and twentyfirst century urban tactics involve clearing each building before moving up. The fact that the German army did not do this demonstrates how much of an outlier Stalingrad really is. Watch Band of Brothers, Carentan for a better idea what proper urban warfare is like.

This was also in a period before the Panther was developed but after the T-34 was introduced en mass so the Germans were at a disadvantage. There are stories of T-34s rolling right off the assembly lines into combat.

Medieval siege tactics involve siege towers, trebuchets, battering rams, or undermining. Siege towers could run up the main roads into town, although you only need one to get wrecked to block the path. On the other hand, this gives invading archers an ideal vantage point to take shots at local militia.

A slum might stop a trebuchet from getting within firing distance, if it was truly gigantic, and if a commander is foolish enough to move his trebuchet into the slums then yes, a small team can set fire to the artillery. Unfortunately, slums tend to be wooden at best and it's likely that a commander would set the slums on fire with burning shot. Wood was the de facto building material of choice in the middle ages. Only governmental buildings would be made of stone. Mud brick was used by the well to do in areas without timber but it was still expensive to use. Dry hay was the most common insulator and bedding. Roofs were thatch if they weren't canvas or tarp. This was the norm for even established villages. Some parts of the slums might be no more than tents or mud huts.

Battering rams tend to be smaller than siege towers so there's a good chance they could maneuver through the slums. Or, failing that, destroy any structure in their way. Dropped rocks wouldn't cut it since there's usually a roof. Fire might work unless they cover it in animal hides and/or seaweed.

Undermining isn't really valid here since the town is so close to water. The mine would flood before they got to the city.

This argument about bows is a little over the top really, not only because these slums are going to be tight, which limits absolute range, but also because many of the buildings will have used cheap materials, which is going to mean that there is nothing stopping the soldiers from going through the walls. Local knowledge is better when the enemy can't find an alternative route.

First off, as I said in a previous post, I'm kind of modeling the slum areas after old Pueblo villages, with lots of several storey tall adobe buildings, with the upper stories accessed by ladders.

Second, while piercing plate armor may be quite difficult, that's not strictly speaking necessary to defeat the person wearing it. Odds are the horses they're riding will not be as protected and will be more easily killed, and in the middle of a maze-like slum getting a new steed won't be easy. Once unhorsed, the guys in full plate will get worn out if they spend much time chasing after guerrilla fighters, and trying to climb a ladder while people on the roofs and upper storeys try to knock them off is just unfeasible. So taking down the guys in full plate isn't necessarily a priority for the slum's defenders, and when they do fight them, they're more likely to use blunt force than piercing weapons, anyway.

Third, don't assume the invading soldiers are necessarily more experienced. They'll have had more formal training, certainly, but many of the slum fighters are likely to have had more actual battle experience than many of the invaders. After all, it's not like they need to go marching across the countryside to do battle with an opposing force; for them, enemy territory is never more than a few blocks away.

That is a good strategy, and if the first invading army had used that plan, it would likely have succeeded. However, after the deputized street gangs system is set up, the best fighters in the slums are going to have an incentive to keep the status quo as it is; not only are they allowed to rule over their turf pretty much as they see fit, but they get a regular paycheck for doing so.

All this being said, the idea isn't that every invasion is repelled by the slums. Like I said, this is more historical background for the story I'm working on, not something that happens in the present day. So all that's really necessary is that the slums are effective enough that deputizing the street gangs seems like a good idea. Once that system's in place, it can keep going long after it's stopped being necessary, or even useful, so long as there are enough people with vested interests in keeping things that way.

edited 21st Nov '13 11:56:08 AM by RavenWilder

Anyone can use short bow, it is very cheap, it has short range and is inefficient versus plate armour. Long bow has long range, is efficient v plate and requires professional training, it costs maybe 1.5 to 3 times the price of a short-bow. Anyone can use a crossbow, it is efficient v plate, it takes longer to re-load and is very expensive.

Either steal crossbows from the invaders and/or when Regular City Militia gets upgraded weapons, give the old models to the Gangs.

In narrow winding streets, Cavalry are useless, feudal infantry have cheaper armour. Short bows are ideal.

But you know what is even more ideal? Gang Militia on the City Walls, shooting at invaders and having a clear line of sight because the slums were burnt because killing field is a standard military tactic.

Special circumstances: City chose this unorthodox technique. City got very scientific walls.

You got this cunning plan that the Shambles is a City of Adventure, NOT 25 yr after 1st war, when it's just stuff happening, but Anno Bellum 75 when Gang Captains have Legal rank and Status.

AB 25: inside the Regular City, there are Aristos and Peasants. Outside, the Shamblenders count as unter-Peasants. Anno Bellum 50 Shambles Gangs Curb Stomp invaders and earn their legal privilege. There is a Law that Shambles Peasants rank as unter-Peasants compared to Regular city Peasants; Gang Captains rank as unter-Aristos compared to Regular city Aristos.

Shennanigans in the City Senate

Councillor #1 asserts this victory was just a fluke. We gotta burn the Shambles, give the Shamblenders homes in the City, volunteer them for Militia duty and register them as Regular peasant Citizens.

Councillor #2 is a minion for the Lord High Treasurer: OP's system is cheaper than making Shamblenders into Regular Citizens and volunteering them for Regular ccitizen Militia.

Councillor #3, he say, this was not a lucky fluke, Gangs is a good military tactic.

Councillor #4 Wraps Himself In The Flag and preaches snowy mountains and shining sea, behold how Patrioticq our unter-Peasants are and votes for OP's constitution.

edited 21st Nov '13 1:47:24 PM by Jaqen

What about catapulting corpses and shit in there? Can't imagine the slums are overly sanitary to being with, add some dead guys and disease and a siege would be much shorter

Indeed, that is standard siege technique.

OP asserts that Gangs are mightier than feudal Levies.

Invaders can't get close enough for standard strategies.

Yes you can. As I said, plan B sets in. Attrition. Set up a perimeter, use what long range weapons you can to choke off the city's sea trade. Let hunger kill your enemies for you. If the city wants to waste their food stores feeding their rabble defenses, let them. That just increases the rate at which the food is expended. Give it a month or two. A nice hard winter. Make sure my supplies and fortifications are secure so they can't break out, and let them starve, freeze, and wait. When spring comes, reinforce and if the city actually still has defenders, let alone rabble defenses, mop them up. Sap the walls and gates. Set up your flag. Clear up the slums, build additional graneries, and set up forts away from the city that will allow me to flank anyone who tries my own tactic against me.

Catapult bodies from the slums into the city.

edited 21st Nov '13 6:18:01 PM by Somber

The city I'm envisioning is like the naval power in the region, though. Choking off sea trade is not a viable strategy for most opponents.

As for waiting them out through the winter . . . well, I'm not even sure if the city will be in a region that gets freezing temperatures, but ignore that for the moment. If they wait long enough for starvation to affect the city, they're also waiting long enough for starvation to affect their own ranks, and since they're the ones who are far from home, maintaining a steady influx of supplies won't necessarily be easy.

Though you are right: in the event of a siege, the slums are gonna be the hardest hit (at least initially, before the deputization program starts up). Would making rooftop gardens a common feature in the slums help alleviate that?

edited 21st Nov '13 8:51:03 PM by RavenWilder

Eh maybe for a bit. Honestly cute little rooftop gardens are more of a hobby than any steady supply of food.

Hmm . . .

Well, since I'm having the city retain naval dominance and keep its port open, I can have it so they're able to send soldiers up/down the coast, have them disembark and attack the invaders' supply lines, before retreating to their ships. That'd make siege warfare very difficult to pull off, forcing an invading army to either quickly storm the city or call the whole invasion off.

Okay dude, if you say it works, then it works. If the plot demands the slum army be successful, then they are successful. If you ask if it's likely, no. I don't believe it would be. I think that any gang, deputized or not, would not fight to the DEATH over a city that refuses them full citizenship. I think that even if they were well paid, they would still break ranks rather than fight to the death. But if your story demands they fight and win, they fight and win. I wouldn't believe it just from the little snippit you gave, but who knows, maybe you can pull it off.

Personally, if I'm coming from far off instead of next door, why the heck would I bother trying to capture the city in the first place? If they're a major military power, why would they BOTHER with a slum army when they can clear out the slums, conscript the gangs, and train them as a formal fieldable militia? But if it's your story, then it's your story.

edited 21st Nov '13 9:31:19 PM by Somber

When the first invasion comes, most of the people living in the slums are refugees who fled there after having nowhere else to go, many of them having their homes taken by the same military that's now attacking the city. At that point, their backs are against the wall. After that first invasion, they are granted full citizenship, and are essentially a militia force, just one that organizes itself with very little oversight.

I'm glad that people are poking out any flaws my idea might have. But I was more worried I had missed something major that would let an army just steamroll through a slum like this, like if they could just redirect a river and let flooding empty the slum out. If the only problem is the invaders having better training, discipline, and supplies than the street gangs, that's something that can easily be Hand Waved.

After all, it's not like the slum's defenders need to be able to take on the entire army. They just need to put up enough of a fight that the invaders think, "Y'know, even if we break through these slums and scale the city walls, we're not gonna have enough soldiers and supplies left to actually take the city. Better to get out while we can."

bel: The Germans had the idiot ball well before Stalingrad. There tanks have almost no bearing on the outcome of city fighting even the PZ IV and PZ V are vulnerable in a city. Ignoring a city full of enemies is begging to have them lash out at your rear areas and flanks from the city. If you can't surround the city you have to go into it to root them out. Nothing you can really do about it.

somber: Invading armies have traveled vast distances to conquer cities and forts before. In the case of a wealthy port city. You are capturing both the wealth in the city and ports access to trade. The logistics issue is a well known challenge for invading armies and is a perfectly valid point to bring up.

As for flinging bodies. Just flinging a body in isn't all that useful unless you are hoping for a psychological effect. It has been done in the past. But that can backfire. Now if you were talking about throwing bodies of people who died of disease that is different.

If you have a deputation program using cheap mass fire archers is pretty easy to achieve. Here is a short bow go to the the archery buts and practice for a few weeks. That is all you need to achieve mass fire. Again the only time you really need skilled archery is for hitting point targets. Firing at a mass of troops is area target not point target.

Various people who live on the outer edges of the slums are more likely to be hunters or have to deal occasional wild animals. Get your pre-trained archers there. Hunting and bringing game meat into the city for sale was a pretty common practice. Also to help supplement food supplies you had. Roof top gardens of which a small portion was donated to a granary would be feasible. Orchards in the slum would also provide food.

It was also common for stores of grain and other foods to be put away in case of troubled times like failed crops, sieges, and other disasters.

Yes a bow can be useful in urban combat. You don't need it to work at the far end of its range. Firing from windows and roof tops out of reach of ground troops is a distinct advantage. If you engage foot troops with melee they have already caught up to you. Ranged weapons let you attack and flee more easily.

Back to siege weapons. Siege rams are not exactly small things. They are usually of a good size and have to be carried by a fair number of people or pushed on a wheeled frame of some sort. If siege towers are going to be vulnerable so will the ram.

Now smaller two, three, four man rams would be useful for breaching buildings in the city. You could knock holes in walls for mouse holes and easier to move through narrow streets.

While it would be hard to outright burn down the slum made of adobe, fire would weaken structures it has even partially burned and may make them easier to tear down. But you would still need to haul away rubble.

Undermining shouldn't be discounted. Just because your near a port doesn't mean you can't undermine a wall that isn't protected by a moat or solid rock. There is no guarantee the tunnel would flood. You could also dig trench works up the main street and do your best to protect it against attacks from the locals.

No matter what option the sieging army takes they are going to have be there for a fairly long stretch of time.

So let me get this straight... I have an army that I bring all the way over from wherever... I arrive at the city... I take a look at the subburbs and go 'well jeeze, that looks kind of hairy. Guess we better go home?' What level of stupidity am I operating under? Have I never heard of research? Spies? Ambassadors (official spies)? Talking to some merchants that shop at this 'naval power'? I'm pretty sure that even alquida spent a little bit of time researching New York City before travelling all the way from Saudi Arabia.

Here's my point. No general or invader is going to waste the time, money, and resources unless they have a plan. Maybe they want to burn it to the ground. Maybe they'll starve them out. Maybe they'll use magic. Who knows? The point is that if you lead a lot of men a long way to pick a fight with no clue how to win, in very short order your army is going to have a new commander. Either the king will order your head from your shoulders or your own army will turn on you. As to what would actually happen? It's FICTION. Whatever happens is whatever you say happens.

Care to provide some more concrete details? Even the Mongolians and Huns conquered one city after the next in a line of pillage. They simply went from nearest target to nearest target.

edited 21st Nov '13 11:09:56 PM by Somber

Something I just got to wondering about is the invaders approaching the city via the river, either by boat/ship, or by damming up the river so they can march across the dry river bed. That would let them circumvent the outer slums; on the other hand, it would leave them with a very narrow area from which to enter the city, letting the city soldiers concentrate their defenses on that spot.

What about using the river to get close to the walls, then spreading out from there, so they only have to fight their way through those parts of the slums closest to the city proper?

Since the city knows it can last out most sieges, their defenses are built around simply keeping invaders from broaching the city walls; so long as they can do that, they win. As such, the only armies who'll attack them are the ones who think they can scale or break through the walls in a relatively short period of time. So if a surprise setback occurs (such as the resistance in the outlying slums being much fiercer than anticipated), the invaders may lose their confidence in their ability to make this war quick, and decide it's better to retreat and regroup.

Though, now that I think of it, for that to work, the consequences of attacking then retreating will have to be fairly low, otherwise the invaders might decide, "Well, we've come this far; we can't give up now." I may need to make it so that, at the time, the occasional skirmish between city-states was treated as normal, and trying to invade and conquer a city last month doesn't stop them from negotiating trade relations with the same city next month.

edited 21st Nov '13 11:23:09 PM by RavenWilder

Daming... a river... Are you... do you...

Have you never heard of a floating bridge? Do you realize the Persians built one across a portion of an ocean to carry their troops to Greece? DAM a RIVER? Do I have an army of solid gold armored troops too? Consider the amount of manpower it took to dam the Colorado at Hoover Dam. The Colorado is not a large river; it's fordable at times in summer.

In short... FICTION. Whatever you say goes. I don't buy the premise of the defense or the attack, but the fact that you proposed DAMING a river tells me you haven't really thought this scenario out. Do you know what happens when you dam a river? You get a LAKE. Depending on how big the river is will determine how big a lake you end up with. And daming the river doesn't magically give you a nice road to march down. The bottoms of most rivers is MUD. So you'd end up with a muddy trail strewn with whatever crap has sunk in it over the last forty or fifty years.

edited 21st Nov '13 11:17:13 PM by Somber

Umm, what else would you dam besides a river? A dam is designed to block the flow of water. A river is any long stretch of flowing water. Pretty much anything you might want to dam is going to be a river. And I'm not talking about getting rid of the whole river; just shrinking it enough so the invaders can march along the new river banks.

And, yes, I know floating barges and the like are an option, but when used on a river that flows beneath a city's defensive walls, they're probably gonna be sunk pretty easily.

edited 21st Nov '13 11:36:29 PM by RavenWilder