[flea]

Is Malazan technology at Roman Empire levels? A mix with middle ages?

What about naval forces?

[paladin]

seems to be a mixture of late medieval(firepowder weapons available in explosive form, or that could be seen as earlier chinese, heavy crossbows, etc) and some earlier periods(more in the cultural area) as well as later periods(letherii is very "american" themed to my eyes)

[Kurt Montandon]

flea;172090 said:

Is Malazan technology at Roman Empire levels? A mix with middle ages?

What about naval forces?

It seems to vary from place to place, at least in melee weapons technology - some places have iron swords, some steel. Some have crossbows, others don't.
Generally 1st thru 13th Century in that regard. Mention has been made of various types of heavy siege machinery, but nothing the Romans didn't have.
Towers, digging to undermine walls, turtles, and so forth. The difference would be Moranth munitions, which, for whatever reason, aren't mentioned in the NoK siege of Y'Ghatan (not the Bonehunters siege of the same).

I'd really think that Moranth munitions would render traditional fortifications obsolete in a way that cannon really didn't until about the 17th century - but then we can't be sure how effective those munitions are against fortifications when they aren't used in a heavy concentration.

As for naval, "dromon" is a Roman term, as is "bireme," so we can assume no later than maybe 12th Century for that. I'm not sure why Erikson's having them use Mediterranean style warships, when there's plenty of open seas with stronger winds and higher waters, not necessitating either a lateen rig or oarsmen. Then again, I don't think we've really heard merchant vessels described, so there are probably the equivalent of caravels, carracks, barques, etc., running around. Ballistae (really big crossbow) is also Roman level.

[Binder of Demons]

As mentioned above, the technology does seem to vary, though not to any huge degree with the exception of moranth munitions.

What we seem to be seeing in this case is akin to what happened in western europe with the advent of gunpowder and explosives, and how that revolutionised warfare by rendering a lot of the traditional defences obsolete.

It also goes towards explaining how a relatively new group has come to be so dominant militarily in such a short space of time. New technology, new tactics, flexible strategies.

The great leveler in this world is of course MAGIC, which can basically make technology pointless, unless you have a way of negating it. And this seems to be a theme of many fantasy worlds, that magic and technological development are almost mutually exclusive.

As for the naval tecnology, again as mentioned above, it does seem to mostly reference roman level design (and their contemporaries). The need for oarsmen is hardly a surprise if you are anticipating close in fighting (again in the absence of gunpowder munitions) and the possible need for boarding other vessels. Also consider that the Vikings had lon gboats which had both sails and oars, and could be used for ocean going as well as travel up rivers to raid. This takes us up to the 10th, 11th century.

But overall, the relative changes in actual technology seem quite small until well into the middle ages. When you consider that we have very few characters in MBotF that have indicated any interest in science (such as Samar Dev, possibly the alchemists, and mainly Icarium) then it's not surprising that the malazans show roughly middle ages level of military tech, certainly no higher.

[polishgenius]

I think it is mostly Roman level, with the significant difference being the use of Moranth munitions, which isn't their technology, and also mages, obviously.

Binder of Demons;172128 said:

The great leveler in this world is of course MAGIC, which can basically make technology pointless, unless you have a way of negating it. And this seems to be a theme of many fantasy worlds, that magic and technological development are almost mutually exclusive.

Slightly off topic, but this really gets my goat sometimes. I won't go into it here, but I may make a topic on the other fantasy board about it...

I wouldn't say Erikson is guilty of that though. There's some pretty spectacular technology floating about, it just happened to cause several minor apocalypses, meaning that no civilisation has yet re-attained that level.
Thinking of course of the KCCM.

[Bottle]

They were also able to become such a prominent military power so quickly because of Dassem Ultor's codex: "Squad based tactics for dummies". Which transformed the army into grizzly Vietnam veterans.
Although I can see it working in close quartered fighting, such as the street combat in Y'ghatan, or against fighting an unruly mob, it is still beyond me how this is effective against rank-&-file regiments in open warfare.

[Binder of Demons]

I agree with you Polishgenius, I don't think Erikson is strictly doing the whole magic keeping the tech level down thing (a la Terry Brooks), and as you mention there is the reference to previously high level tech such as used by the KCCM.

But the use of magic does tend to throw a spanner in the works of traditional military strategy and tech development as we'd know it.

[polishgenius]

Oh yeah. It's not so much the fact that it's not traditional development, but that there's none at all. Mieville and the like of him (Terry Pratchett also, quite significantly as the development occurs within the series) show it's possible to build a convincing world with both, using a little imagination. It's just easier to go 'huh, thousands of years of history, but no development just because'. Brooks, Goodkind (from what little I've read) and Jordan (again, not read much, but from what I know) are guilty of that.

I'm dragging this off topic, so I'll make one on the other fantasy board later when I'm less busy, unless you want to do it.

[Binder of Demons]

Fair enough, a topic for another board at a later time. You seem to have given it a lot more thought than I, so I'm happy to let you choose the thrust of that discussion (I will quickly say that Micheal Swanwick is another author who has managed to mix both magic and tech in a different way).

[Kurt Montandon]

Bottle;172131 said:

They were also able to become such a prominent military power so quickly because of Dassem Ultor's codex: "Squad based tactics for dummies". Which transformed the army into grizzly Vietnam veterans.
Although I can see it working in close quartered fighting, such as the street combat in Y'ghatan, or against fighting an unruly mob, it is still beyond me how this is effective against rank-&-file regiments in open warfare.

The same way it worked for the Romans - discipline formations that shatter barbarians warrior-ethos masses and less organized conventional armies.

There's a lot of similarities between the Malazan armies and those of the Romans - everything from unit structure (armies:legions:cohorts:companies instead of centuries), to arms (short swords, big shields, and some javelin throwers), and style of march & encampment. That scene where Itkovian looks upon the Malazan army entrenched behind field fortifications is pure Roman camp standards - Roman legions would build pallisades and trenches every night when they reached a new location.

Sheer discipline is another important feature, but it's 4:30am so I need to get to bed.

[polishgenius]

http://www.malazanempire.com/forums/showth...2155#post172155

Thar we go.


And also, yeah, on what kmmont said. The Romans weren't the first to do it (the Spartans spring to mind) but they created and maintained an empire not through size and ferocity of armies but by being more organized and disciplined then everyone else.

[Bottle]

hm, I will look into this, I was imagining am army of skirmishers, or independant small size squads who would be crushed by a charge of a solid infantry block. So your saying these small groups (e.g. Fid's 'Squad') would then form a large formation? that makes a lot more sense I think.
Whats the best battle to look at for Malazan doctrine?

[polishgenius]

Quote

So your saying these small groups (e.g. Fid's 'Squad') would then form a large formation? that makes a lot more sense I think.

That's what I imagined it as.

The Chain of Dogs is quite a good illustration as a whole, I think, especially before things get truly desperate. Squads break off for quiet work like the whole Semk magician thing but fit back in for the main battles.

[spiralx]

polishgenius;172133 said:

Oh yeah. It's not so much the fact that it's not traditional development, but that there's none at all. Mieville and the like of him (Terry Pratchett also, quite significantly as the development occurs within the series) show it's possible to build a convincing world with both, using a little imagination. It's just easier to go 'huh, thousands of years of history, but no development just because'. Brooks, Goodkind (from what little I've read) and Jordan (again, not read much, but from what I know) are guilty of that.

I'm dragging this off topic, so I'll make one on the other fantasy board later when I'm less busy, unless you want to do it.

Sort of spoilers for TWoT BTW.

To be fair to Jordan there's a good reason for the relative low-tech in his world due to the various wars that have raged across the world and set progress back hundreds of years (after all the Age of Legends had both high-tech and high-magic). And towards the ends of the books someone has developed a steam-powered cart, and Mat is given the idea for cannon which should appear in the final book.

[flea]

kmmontandon;172147 said:

There's a lot of similarities between the Malazan armies and those of the Romans - everything from unit structure (armies:legions:cohorts:companies instead of centuries),

Thanks for the military history.

I have a difficult time visualizing how this would look. I get the phalanx, and I seem to recall that the Romans modified and improved on the Greek system. Would you expand if the next paragraph is wrong or does not make sense?

I seem to remember that a basic Malazan military doctrine is to use smaller units, and not a large block, to make it more difficult for the enemy to see that it is losing, to delay the onset of panic until the Malazans can utterly destroy the opposing force. So do I understand how the units work?

I do have a problem with the notion that magic nullifies advances in military tactics. I get it when Samar Dev speculates about how magic impedes "progress" in general, but I'm not sure it applies to military technology. With the exception of the Edur campaign against Lether, many characters have commented that the magic of the opposing sides often negates the power of mages, leaving a contest of arms. Surely avoidance of massacre is a proper motivation for innovation?

Of course, without gunpowder, what innovation is possible? There is no direct evidence that moranth munitions can be adapted to making cannons, I think.

Just thinking aloud here.

[paladin]

magic nullifies a certain number of swords unchecked, but a crazy mofo sapper with a crossbow that shoots sharpers and the like nullifies a mage(and then most likely himself after he blows himself up in a comedic turn)

[Battalion]

Ballistae and catapults (think I've read about them in the books) were invented by the ancient Greeks during their wars with Carthage.
Obviously, gunpowder was first created on the other side of the planet, but I don't think it was used in warfare for sometime after its invention.
As mentioned above, there seem to be many different ages mixed together in the books. Anomander Rake carries a sword that seems Celtish in size, as do many others. The Imass still use weapons of bone and stone (like the people living three doors down from me) and the Malazan standard issue rain cape reminds me of nothing more than a U.S marine bogged down in Veitnam.
Also, in Gardens of the Moon, when the dragons attacked the Jaghut Tyrant, they flew in perfect formation, if I remember well, flying like a squadren of Spitfires.
I've had a quick look around, can't find any history of nations using demented mules as attack frontliners.

[Coco with marshmallows]

@ kmontandon, some posts above:

they don't use munitions at first siege of Y'ghatan because they hadn't hooked up with the moranth yet. that didn't happen till the invasion of Genabackis, some time after the conquest of the seven cities.

[Kurt Montandon]

flea;172195 said:

Thanks for the military history.
I seem to remember that a basic Malazan military doctrine is to use smaller units, and not a large block, to make it more difficult for the enemy to see that it is losing, to delay the onset of panic until the Malazans can utterly destroy the opposing force. So do I understand how the units work?

That was a scene towards the end of just one battle, representing a single tactic under given circumstances. Prior to that (we're talking about the Malazan part in lifting the Siege of Capustan), the Malazans were fighting in a more consolidated formation.

As someone mentioned above, the Chain of Dogs shows the Seventh fighting in large scale, if improvised for circumstance, formations.

Also keep in mind that "large formations" don't necessarily mean entire legions packed shoulder to shoulder - there's a lot of variation available. Those small blocks of units as part of a larger whole can be oriented in a wide variety of ways. That was one key to the Roman success, having a large number of mid-sized units (100-1000 strong) working in close, disciplined concert to a particular task, maneuvering according to unit command rather than individual instinct.

Wikipedia has a good, if incomplete, description: Roman Military Tactics . Scroll down a ways to see diagrams of subordinate unit maneuvers within a larger whole (it's under "Variations In Formation).

And the Roman system wasn't really an evolution of the Greek phalanx, it was at least partially an answer to it - as well as an answer to any other style of fighting they might encounter.

[Kurt Montandon]

Cocoreturns;172252 said:

@ kmontandon, some posts above:

they don't use munitions at first siege of Y'ghatan because they hadn't hooked up with the moranth yet. that didn't happen till the invasion of Genabackis, some time after the conquest of the seven cities.

This is another time-line issue - the invasion of Genabackis occurs two years before the assassination of the Emperor, but the first battle at Y'Ghatan occurs a little less than a year before.

And we've seen mention that the Moranth didn't refine the ultimate form of the munitions as we've seen them in the books, the Emperor did. At least, that's the impression I got, from one of Fiddler's comments in DG(1). So they probably weren't integrated as an instrument so soon after contact with the Moranth ... which, in my opinion, probably occured well before the invasion (the Moranth already had ships on the seas, after all, so they weren't unknown Genabackis).



1. When he's threatening Iskaral Pust with an unseen cusser, Pust asks "who invented those things." Don't have the books with me, so he may have been referring to sappers, not munitions - but Fiddler answered to the effect of "The Emperor" or "your master Shadowthrone." I'll have to go check.