Alorian Military Strategy - Discussion For Fun

[Conflee]

Hello! Ill start this by saying I'm far from an expert, nor do I think most of this is extremely relevant for Roleplay, but Aloria is an interesting setting as far as warfare goes especially, because while we have cannons, we lack any rifles, and I'm curious as to how battles would look generally. This is mostly just a for fun discussion and speculation. I brought it up in Discord and we came to a general idea which I think is pretty accurate possibly.


The idea is because cannons lead to larger battle fields with more spread out Asymmetric lines (Napoleonic Wars style), a trend like this would have probably taken hold in Aloria too. Probably early canon warfare and resembling Napoleonic ear less. Lines of men with pikes or spears, farmers mostly, in light armor forming a divided line that maneuvered in chunks and emphasized speed mostly. Cavalry as a right wing and reserves would probably also be very common, possibly screening the friendly artillery to prevent it from being taken. Where prior cavalry would have dominated, making foot armies want to hold the ridgeline of hills, with artillery firing down on them its also possible taking the defilade behind a ridgeline would become more favorable, especially given that was a strategy used in the Peninsular war during Napoleonic times, and is a kind of common sense "oh shit lets hide a bit" reaction to being shelled.

It also depends some on how common cannons are in Aloria. I know Regalia uses them, and has for some time, so its likely other Ailor states have adopted them as well. The Skagger, which often supplements Regalian forces, would probably fair pretty poorly to this style of warfare, though they could be used as a light foot force sent to flank, or likely just crammed in the line at a wing like many 'foreign' allies were in history.

Another possible issue is that one reason battle fields could be traversed so quickly was because people gave up on armor when muskets became the standard. Speed is always favored in these situations especially because of cannons firing on a position if you sit still too long. Regalia's foot army would still need armor obviously, because spears and pikes are used still, but its possible they would opt for much lighter armor still, gambeson and the sort for common levies.


The real fun begins when we consider magic and dragons, and other more fantastical elements that have been utilized. Magic on its own is too rare to be used for units, but for specialized groups with set missions its amazing. Dragons, mainly the Imperial Dragon, could be used a few interesting ways. The obvious one is line disruption. The Dragon can crash into a line and effectively shatter it on his own, making fly-by swoop-smash-retreat tactics very effective. Shatter the line, fly out, let the Cavalry charge in to break it open further and boom you've probably routed most armies.

Scouting is also a powerful use. The Dragon can see the whole field more or less, and isn't common enough for enemy forces to develop reliable strategies to circumvent. He could spot movements, report flankings, or even handle some flank maneuvers himself- if he spots a cavalry charge flanking the right side, he can land, spook the horses, bat a couple dozen men away, and the rest will probably break considering Cavalry is used hit hit and run tactics anyway. Their instinct will be to scatter when they meet resistance- and a Dragon is a hell of a resistance. The Kathar's Towers seem to require some setup time to establish, making them mostly defensive presumably, though that lore isnt known so they may be decent enough at offensive deployment.



Anyyyyway Ive rambled a fair bit. What are everyone else's thoughts? What do you think war would look like in Aloria.

 

[Wumpatron]

Well remember, that the cannons are controlled by the military. While most recently it was implied that some noble house had cannons, that is in the past now until the new noble pages get made for the wiki. Most noble houses are formed up of levies with minimal combat experience which is very much like medieval warfare. Just a bunch of dudes in a field. What I do think would be neato to think about is how the Regalian army fights foreign enemies. Considering the foreign armies have a lot of different makeups. Just a neat thought

 

[Reaganism]

Napoleonic warfare fanatic here.

Aloria is an interesting setting as far as warfare goes especially, because while we have cannons, we lack any rifles

Click to shrink...

That situation was present in European history from 1247 to 1836. If you correct the word usage (replace "rifle" with "handheld firearm"), you'll see that there was still a time when field artillery existed without widespread guns. This'll be 13th, 14th and 15th centuries. I live across to the castle of the guy who established the first standing "firearm army", but even that one was 1/4 gun armed and the rest were auxiliaries and vanguard. Here:

"We regard the armored heavy infantry as a wall, who never give up their place, even if they are slaughtered to the last one of them, on the very spot they are standing. Light soldiers perform breakouts depending on the occasion, and when they are already tired or sense severe danger, they return back behind the armoured soldiers, organizing their lines and collecting power, and stay there until, on occasion, they may break forth again. In the end, all of the infantry and shooters are surrounded by armoured and shielded soldiers, just as those were standing behind a rampart. Since, the greater pavieses, put next to each other in a circle, show the picture of a fortress, and are similar to a wall, in the protection whereof the infantry and all the ones standing in the middle, fight like from behind tower-walls or rampart, and they occasionally break out of there." - Matthias Corvinus, 1480s

This continued way into the 16th century, and to a degree into the 17th. Gustavus Adolphus was the first to turn the tide in the 30 years war with mass-shooting infantry.

The idea is because cannons lead to larger battle fields with more spread out Asymmetric lines (Napoleonic Wars style), a trend like this would have probably taken hold in Aloria too.

Click to shrink...

Asymmetric what. Napoleonic infantries had the following formations: Thin line, Line, Deep line, Napoleonic Square, Column, Cadencing column.

Also, lines had nothing to do with artillery. Columns were highly vulnerable to direct cannon fire, whereas lines were vulnerable to oblique fire.

The reason lines appeared is because they maximised firing power for the infantry. In a thin or regular line, all infantrymen could shoot at the same time. That's it. End of it. Done. No artillery involved.

Lines of men with pikes or spears, farmers mostly, in light armor forming a divided line that maneuvered in chunks and emphasized speed mostly.

Click to shrink...

If they'd emphasise speed, they'd cadence from columns and not march in lines. You also don't put pikes in lines because they require depth to pose any weight. The Macedons realised this early on. Pikes would rather form squares than anything else.

Cavalry as a right wing and reserves would probably also be very common, possibly screening the friendly artillery to prevent it from being taken.

Click to shrink...

Cavalry cannot screen artillery because horses throw their riders off at the sound of a heavy cannon, or if deaf, at the burst of air towards them. Look at Napoleonic battle set-ups and see how generals separated cavalry and heavy artillery. Mind, horse artillery isn't a cavalry thing or anti-cavalry thing, it's just any battery dawn by horses.

Where prior cavalry would have dominated, making foot armies want to hold the ridgeline of hills, with artillery firing down on them its also possible taking the defilade behind a ridgeline would become more favorable, especially given that was a strategy used in the Peninsular war during Napoleonic times, and is a kind of common sense "oh shit lets hide a bit" reaction to being shelled.

Click to shrink...

No soldier on the actual battlefields (and not on the Peninsula where low quality militia fought an isolated attrition war) was allowed to take shelter (abandon the line). Morale was twice as important than anything combined, and hiding soldiers mean deserting soldiers the next minute. Once again, cadencing was the answer to heavy artillery fire, or lying down/ducking.

Examples:

"Bulow stopped about 100 paces to our right and saw what a perilous position we were in. He sent an officer over to us who shouted loudly that, on the orders of the commanding general, the battalion was to lie down. Some of the men actually did so, but as more and more voices shouted 'We don't duck !' they got up again and everyone stood to attention as if on parade." Major Friccius the of Prussian Landwehr battalion, Waterloo

"A 12-gun Austrian battery dominated the field. To confront it, the French infantry formed 'in a single line with 3 pace intervals supported at some distance by 10-man platoons commanded by an officer.' Few units could emulate such modern, open-order tactics." (Arnold - "Napoleon Conquers Austria" p 113)

"The Russian [artillery] fire was a bit wild. Moreover, the French took shelter in Eylau's outbuildings, behind the garden walls and the mounds adjacent to Cemetery Knoll, and by hiding in the folds in the ground between Windmill Hill and the town. Also, the French infantry were deployed in relatively thin formations which limited the damage caused by bounding cannon balls and exploding shells. The French gunners, on the other hand, easily marked their targets; black masses against the white snow. … A Russian hussar officer watched in horror when a cannon ball knocked down 8 soldiers in the Tobol Musketeer Regiment. " (Arnold – "Crisis in the snows" p 281)

"The same terrifying [Austrian] artillery discharge had carried off 21 men of the 5th Company's front rank. Each instant we were obliged to lie down to avoid the shell fragments." (- Girault, French infantryman in 1792 )

Similarly, the effect of Artillery wasn't to "kill" soldiers but to scatter them and to douse their morale. Mind, even in Napoleonic times cannons were inaccurate, pesky to handle and dangerous even to their own crew. In Aloria, the morale-crunching effect of cannons would be even more important compared to their actual use. Just read this:

"... a cannonball came down the valley and took off the heads of 5 voltigeurs in the third rank ... I was so covered with blood and brains that I could scarcely see. I had the bodies taken to the rear and went down to the to clean up my uniform as best I could." - Unkown French officer of the Lin

The Skagger, which often supplements Regalian forces, would probably fair pretty poorly to this style of warfare, though they could be used as a light foot force sent to flank, or likely just crammed in the line at a wing like many 'foreign' allies were in history.

Click to shrink...

I agree on this one. While the flavour of nordic people and the fan-service of fulfilling Vikings watchers is cute, the Skaggers would stand zero chance against an army equipped / used in the standards described on the Regalian Empire pages. I can only say one single and simple thing: Tenochtitlan.

Another possible issue is that one reason battle fields could be traversed so quickly was because people gave up on armor when muskets became the standard.

Click to shrink...

Wrong. Or more so, a misconception. Even more precisely, a statistical fallacy. People tend to believe this misconception because there's an obvious inverse correlation between "amount of muskets" and "amount of armour" on a battlefield. People, however, always tend to forget the Hussite wars, the Black Army of Hungary and the Napoleonic cuirass.

The right statement is:
"As the numbers fielded in battles grew exponentially, so did the amount of armour-fitted soldiers fell to the point where only a small fraction of the fielded troops could wear armour, because the amount of armour-fitted troops only grew linear."

Armour was vital in Napoleonic times. A cuirass could deflect sword and bayonet with ease, and even protect the wielder against musket and pistol fire. Other than that, a cuirass gave a soldier chance against grape shot, shrapnel and even lighter artillery. A simple google search will show you cuirasses destroyed by cannons, but also some with a surprising amount of musket-ball dents on them that didn't actually pierce through.

Napoleon had the single and only armoured "infantry" battalion in the wars. Or, to be specific, it was a battalion of mounted infantry, the Carabiniers à Cheval. Though still, by pure numbers, Napoleon had more armoured troops than any French king or general prior. He actually had so many that the Russians could outfit three (!) cuirassier squadrons from armour they looted off the French during the 1812 invasion.

So what would a cannon-toting army look like without firearms? Even more like the Black Army.

Speed is always favored in these situations especially because of cannons firing on a position if you sit still too long.

Click to shrink...

Implying smoothbore artillery could pick a target and not fire "in a direction".

Regalia's foot army would still need armor obviously, because spears and pikes are used still, but its possible they would opt for much lighter armor still, gambeson and the sort for common levies.

Click to shrink...

Armour doesn't slow you down. Not at all.

Take this, for example. The full battle equipment of a munition-plate-clad 15th century soldier weighted 1/2 the full battle gear of a modern marine. Specifically, I can tell you a metal cuirass is lighter than a BPV, because military grade from the latter will contain ceramic plates (something movies tend to forget about).

The real fun begins when we consider magic and dragons, and other more fantastical elements that have been utilized. Magic on its own is too rare to be used for units, but for specialized groups with set missions its amazing.

Click to shrink...

(Smiles in agreement)

My take is that the combat wouldn't be any different to late-medieval warfare. EG, referring here to 15th-16th century. The fantasy elements are too rare, and equipment availability is similar.

 

[Proudbucket]

My take on this

Assumptions:
- Magic users are essentially walking cannons.
- Cannons devastate slow close ranked formations.
- Maneuverable cavalry seldom take damage from cannons.
- Slow close ranked pikemen repel cavalry.

Result:
- If firepower is lacking on both sides, troops engage freely.
- If firepower is strong and equal on both sides, you get a slow cannon grinding and sporadic cavalry overtures.
- If firepower is lacking on one side, that side retreats or tries to close distance fast and engage.

 

[Conflee]

Asymmetric what. Napoleonic infantries had the following formations: Thin line, Line, Deep line, Napoleonic Square, Column, Cadencing column.

Click to shrink...

Asymmetric compared to how lines had been set up for ages prior, which was usually one force all in the same general setup. I didn't mean in long stretches only a few men deep, I meant lines more in the older sense. Blocks of men.

Cavalry cannot screen artillery because horses throw their riders off at the sound of a heavy cannon, or if deaf, at the burst of air towards them. Look at Napoleonic battle set-ups and see how generals separated cavalry and heavy artillery. Mind, horse artillery isn't a cavalry thing or anti-cavalry thing, it's just any battery dawn by horses.

Click to shrink...

I didn't mean right on top of it. If your artillery was set up on a good hill to the right flank, you could probably get away with them skirmishing on that side way forwards to prevent smaller groups flanking to take the artillery.

No soldier on the actual battlefields (and not on the Peninsula where low quality militia fought an isolated attrition war) was allowed to take shelter (abandon the line). Morale was twice as important than anything combined, and hiding soldiers mean deserting soldiers the next minute. Once again, cadencing was the answer to heavy artillery fire, or lying down/ducking.

Click to shrink...

I didnt mean the men themselves sheltering, I mean the general himself positioning a line behind a ridgeline instead of on top of the hill like they would have in the past, which was used quite a bit.

Implying smoothbore artillery could pick a target and not fire "in a direction". Armour doesn't slow you down. Not at all.

Take this, for example. The full battle equipment of a munition-plate-clad 15th century soldier weighted 1/2 the full battle gear of a modern marine. Specifically, I can tell you a metal cuirass is lighter than a BPV, because military grade from the latter will contain ceramic plates (something movies tend to forget about).

Click to shrink...

If you fought in a solid line / block, they can just rain fire of you. If your men are divided into blocks and can move forwards and to the sides easier, the guys with the big death tubes have to actually attempt to aim, rotating the heavy cannon. Beyond that armor would slow an army down over time. A well trained army, maybe not as badly- the Romans did good because they were trained specifically to carry around their armor plus a ton of extra weight, it became second nature for them. A levied army of farmers, still can probably walk about in armor at the same speed as without- for a short time. They would get worn down though slightly faster with it than without. Even in lighter metal armor like mail. Gambeson is lighter, cheaper, and renewable which would make it good for a levied army like Regalia's I think.

 

[Proudbucket]

While the flavour of nordic people and the fan-service of fulfilling Vikings watchers is cute, the Skaggers would stand zero chance against an army equipped / used in the standards described on the Regalian Empire pages. I can only say one single and simple thing: Tenochtitlan.

Click to shrink...

While I tend to agree with your argument, you couldn't have chosen a worse example to make your point.

Bernal días del Castillo, the Spaniard chronicler that took part on the expedition that conquered Tenochtitlan and documented the deads reports that the expedition brought just fourteen cannons. Basically they just brought 10 small cannons (tiros de bronce) and 4 large ones (falconetes). That makes sense if you consider that they had to travel more than 350 km from Veracruz to Tenochtitlan and it was difficult to transport cannons and large amounts of gunpowder over roads that were not made for wheeled vehicles.

It is also hard to argue that cannons had a large role on the conquest of Tenochtitlan because of how asymmetrical the forces were and the cultural and strategical situation. The Spaniards were a small fraction of the army (about 1000 men in the end) that conquered Tenochtitlan, rather they were companied by a large army of tlaxcalans and allies that fought alongside them. Moreover, the Aztec defeat can also be associated to other factors such as the fact that the Spaniards kidnapped the Aztec king during negotiations, the fact that Tenochtitlan was affected by a smallpox epidemic at the time, the fact that groups in the region expected ritual wars (flower wars) instead of full scale confrontation and probably a cultural/religious bias that led to the Spaniards being feared.

My take:
Yes, I think that with large amount of cannons infantry assaults are not feasible. However, the gunpowder of the setting is not like gunpowder in real life. The lore states that gunpowder cannot be easily produced, only a few nations have access to it and some major nations even dispense of it. If firepower is scarce (as it is suggested in the lore) skagger like groups might still have a role in the battlefield.

 

[Reaganism]

While I tend to agree with your argument, you couldn't have chosen a worse example to make your point.

Bernal días del Castillo, the Spaniard chronicler that took part on the expedition that conquered Tenochtitlan and documented the deads reports that the expedition brought just fourteen cannons. Basically they just brought 10 small cannons (tiros de bronce) and 4 large ones (falconetes). That makes sense if you consider that they had to travel more than 350 km from Veracruz to Tenochtitlan and it was difficult to transport cannons and large amounts of gunpowder over roads that were not made for wheeled vehicles.

It is also hard to argue that cannons had a large role on the conquest of Tenochtitlan because of how asymmetrical the forces were and the cultural and strategical situation. The Spaniards were a small fraction of the army (about 1000 men in the end) that conquered Tenochtitlan, rather they were companied by a large army of tlaxcalans and allies that fought alongside them. Moreover, the Aztec defeat can also be associated to other factors such as the fact that the Spaniards kidnapped the Aztec king during negotiations, the fact that Tenochtitlan was affected by a smallpox epidemic at the time, the fact that groups in the region expected ritual wars (flower wars) instead of full scale confrontation and probably a cultural/religious bias that led to the Spaniards being feared.

My take:
Yes, I think that with large amount of cannons infantry assaults are not feasible. However, the gunpowder of the setting is not like gunpowder in real life. The lore states that gunpowder cannot be easily produced, only a few nations have access to it and some major nations even dispense of it. If firepower is scarce (as it is suggested in the lore) skagger like groups might still have a role in the battlefield.

Click to shrink...

My point was that screaming half-naked dudes toting primitive weapons and charging at well-armoured, late-medieval soldiers who are trained in formations will end disastrously even without cannons.

If you fought in a solid line / block, they can just rain fire of you. If your men are divided into blocks and can move forwards and to the sides easier, the guys with the big death tubes have to actually attempt to aim, rotating the heavy cannon. Beyond that armor would slow an army down over time. A well trained army, maybe not as badly- the Romans did good because they were trained specifically to carry around their armor plus a ton of extra weight, it became second nature for them. A levied army of farmers, still can probably walk about in armor at the same speed as without- for a short time. They would get worn down though slightly faster with it than without. Even in lighter metal armor like mail. Gambeson is lighter, cheaper, and renewable which would make it good for a levied army like Regalia's I think.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, right. Lot of study went into the question as to why Napoleonic generals marched their men in columns. The answer I wrote already: morale and cohesion. Only veterans of the line were chosen to be skirmishers, because they proved they can keep a brain on the battlefield.

Now without quotes (that I could fetch from napoleonystika if I cared that much), take these:
- A vast majority of linemen involuntarily defecated during the battle.
- A good portion did not even notice their muskets failed to fire. Archeologists found muskets rammed with 3-4 loads, where the musketeer forgot to change the flint.
- Each line battalion had officers behind the line with pikes. These were used to reach into the line and align the muskets so that they at least point at the right direction.
- A surprisingly common cause of death was first-row fatality at the hands of the third row, simply because the third row kept muskets too close to ears or just shot the first row in the back of the head.
- Bayonet wounds contributed to less than 1% of wounds. Yet bayonet charges were very common. The reason: When one side raised bayonets, the other scattered.

Mind, these weren't levies. They were paid wages, fought in war 24/7 for months and received basic training. These linemen were kept in lines because ... peer pressure forced them in place during a drop of morale. They marched in columns because they couldn't move in a line without breaking it - keeping up with a guy in front of you is easier than with two on your sides.

Would you think a late-medieval army of levies could execute these, even?

 

[Conflee]

Mind, these weren't levies. They were paid wages, fought in war 24/7 for months and received basic training. These linemen were kept in lines because ... peer pressure forced them in place during a drop of morale. They marched in columns because they couldn't move in a line without breaking it - keeping up with a guy in front of you is easier than with two on your sides.

Would you think a late-medieval army of levies could execute these, even?

Click to shrink...

It would depend. Aloria is probably much more firmly set in the mentalities of the Feudal times. Where war was accepted as a duty, its just part of life- you farm, and every once and a while your village sends a few men off to the army when called upon. Probably scrap him gear together from what the village has around, Darren has a decent enough sword his father owned, another guy might have a shield from his father, give them out to the guys heading off and thats that.

It was just normal life. And death wasn't too much of an issue because eh, your parents probably lost a few kids anyways already, and you're a good lad so you'll go to heaven- or ascend to the Great Way- for dying for the Empire.

 

[Reaganism]

It would depend. Aloria is probably much more firmly set in the mentalities of the Feudal times. Where war was accepted as a duty, its just part of life- you farm, and every once and a while your village sends a few men off to the army when called upon. Probably scrap him gear together from what the village has around, Darren has a decent enough sword his father owned, another guy might have a shield from his father, give them out to the guys heading off and thats that.

Click to shrink...

The examples I brought up were of a continent that, by the time of the Napoleonic wars, has been engulfed in constant warfare and slaughter for 200 years. Compared to the 7 years war, the 30 years war, the 80 years war, the Spanish succession war, the independence war, the revolutionary wars and the Napoleonic wars, Aloria is a paradise of peace.

 

[Conflee]

The examples I brought up were of a continent that, by the time of the Napoleonic wars, has been engulfed in constant warfare and slaughter for 200 years. Compared to the 7 years war, the 30 years war, the 80 years war, the Spanish succession war, the independence war, the revolutionary wars and the Napoleonic wars, Aloria is a paradise of peace.

Click to shrink...

I wouldn't say that necessarily. Its never world news enough to hear about but nobles all over likely have their short wars constantly, and Regalia has been at war almost constantly for the last several years. Wars in Aloria tend to get ended swiftly but brutally, where as IRL some dragged on for years with only a couple battles each campaigning season.

We also deal with supernatural threats which probably harden what standing army we do have. Bone Horrors, Deathlings, now Kathar with Death Towers.

 

[Reaganism]

I wouldn't say that necessarily. Its never world news enough to hear about but nobles all over likely have their short wars constantly, and Regalia has been at war almost constantly for the last several years. Wars in Aloria tend to get ended swiftly but brutally, where as IRL some dragged on for years with only a couple battles each campaigning season.

We also deal with supernatural threats which probably harden what standing army we do have. Bone Horrors, Deathlings, now Kathar with Death Towers.

Click to shrink...

Choose which 300 years was happy, and which was dark fantasy:

Spoiler

• c. 1500–1854 Lekianoba
• 1501-1512 Dano-Swedish War (1501–12)
• 1502–1543 Guelders Wars
• 1503–1505 War of the Succession of Landshut
• 1508–1516 War of the League of Cambrai – 31,000 killed in action[1]
• 1509–1510 Polish–Moldavian War
• 1514 Poor Conrad's Rebellion
• 1514 Dózsa rebellion
• 1514–1517 Saxon feud
• 1515 Slovene Peasant Revolt
• 1515–1523 Frisian peasant rebellion
• 1519–1521 Polish–Teutonic War
• 1520–1521 Revolt of the Comuneros
• 1521–1523 Revolt of the Brotherhoods
• 1521–1523 Swedish War of Liberation
• 1521–1526 Italian War of 1521–1526 – 30,000 killed in action[1]
• 1521–1718 Ottoman–Habsburg wars
• 1522–1523 Knights' Revolt
• 1524–1525 German Peasants' War
• 1526 Revolt of Espadán
• 1526–1530 War of the League of Cognac – 18,000 killed in action[1]
• 1529 First War of Kappel
• 1531 Second War of Kappel
• 1531-1532 War of Two Kings
• 1534 Silken Thomas Rebellion
• 1534–1535 Münster Rebellion
• 1534–1536 Count's Feud
• 1536-1537 Reformation in Norway
• 1536–1537 Pilgrimage of Grace
• 1540 Salt War
• 1542–1546 Italian War of 1542–1546 – 47,000 killed in action[1]
• 1542–1543 Dacke War
• 1543–1550 Rough Wooing
• 1546–1547 Schmalkaldic War
• 1549 Kett's Rebellion
• 1549 Prayer Book Rebellion
• 1550 Battle of Sauðafell
• 1551–1559 Italian War of 1551–1559 – 75,000 killed in action[1]
• 1552–1555 Second Margrave War
• 1554 Wyatt's rebellion
• 1554–1557 Russo-Swedish War
• 1558–1583 Livonian War
• 1559–1564 Spanish-Turkish War – 24,000 killed in action[1]
• 1560 Siege of Leith
• 1562–1598 French Wars of Religion
• 1563–1570 Northern Seven Years' War
• 1565 Great Siege of Malta
• 1566 Siege of Szigetvár
• 1568–1570 Morisco Revolt
• 1568–1648 Eighty Years' War
• 1569–1580 Spanish-Turkish War – 48,000 killed in action[1]
• 1569–1570 Rising of the North
• 1569–1573 First Desmond Rebellion
• 1573 Croatian–Slovene Peasant Revolt
• 1578 Georgian-Ottoman War
• 1579–1583 Second Desmond Rebellion
• 1580–1583 War of the Portuguese Succession
• 1583–1588 Cologne War
• 1585–1604 English-Spanish War – 48,000 killed in action[1]
• 1588–1654 Dutch–Portuguese War
• 1587–1588 War of the Polish Succession
• 1590–1595 Russo-Swedish War
• 1593 Battle of Sisak
• 1593–1606 Long Turkish War
• 1593–1617 Moldavian Magnate Wars
• 1594–1603 Nine Years' War (Ireland)
• 1595–1621 Moldavian Magnate Wars
• 1596–1597 Cudgel War
• 1598–1599 War against Sigismund
• 1600–1629 Polish–Swedish War
• 1602 Savoyard escalade of Geneva
• 1605–1618 Polish–Muscovite War
• 1606–1607 Bolotnikov Rebellion
• 1606–1608 Zebrzydowski Rebellion
• 1610–1614 Spanish-Turkish War – 15,000 killed in action[1]
• 1610–1617 Ingrian War
• 1611–1613 Kalmar War
• 1615–1618 Uskok War
• 1615–1617 Spanish-Savoian War – 2,000 killed in action[1]
• 1617–1621 Spanish-Venetian War – 5,000 killed in action[1]
• 1618–1619 Spanish-Turkish War – 6,000 killed in action[1]
• 1618–1648 Thirty Years' War
  • 1624–1625 Siege of Breda – Spain vs. Holland, England
  • 1635 Siege of Leuven – Spain vs. Holland, France
  • 1637 Battle off Lizard Point – Spain vs. Holland
  • 1638 Battle of Getaria – France vs. Spain
  • 1639 Battle of the Downs – Spain vs. Holland
  • 1643 Battle of Rocroi – France vs. Spain
  • 1648 Battle of Lens – France vs. Spain
• 1618–1639 Bündner Wirren
• 1620–1621 Polish–Ottoman War
• 1625 Zhmaylo Uprising
• 1627–1629 Anglo-French War
• 1628–1631 War of the Mantuan Succession
• 1630 Fedorovych Uprising
• 1632–1634 Smolensk War
• 1637 Pavlyuk Uprising
• 1638 Ostryanyn Uprising
• 1639–1653 Wars of the Three Kingdoms
• 1640–1668 Spanish-Portuguese War – 80,000 killed in action[1]
• 1648–1659 Franco-Spanish War – 108,000 killed in action[1]
• 1648–1657 Khmelnytsky Uprising
• 1651 Kostka-Napierski Uprising
• 1651–1986 Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years' War
• 1652–1674 Anglo-Dutch Wars
• 1653 Swiss peasant war of 1653
• 1654 First Bremian War
• 1654–1667 Russo–Polish War
• 1654–1660 English-Spanish War – 15,000 killed in action[1]
• 1655–1660 Second Northern War
• 1656 War of Villmergen
• 1663–1664 Austro-Turkish War
• 1666 Second Bremian War
• 1666–1671 Polish–Cossack–Tatar War
• 1667–1668 War of Devolution – 4,000 killed in action[1]
• 1670–1671 Razin's Rebellion
• 1672 First Kuruc Uprising
• 1672–1678 Franco-Dutch War – 342,000 killed in action[1]
• 1672–1673 Second Genoese–Savoyard War
• 1675–1679 Scanian War
• 1676–1681 Russo-Turkish War
• 1679 Covenanter Rebellion
• 1683–1684 War of the Reunions – 5,000 killed in action[1]
• 1683–1699 Great Turkish War – 384,000 killed in action[1]
• 1685 Monmouth Rebellion
• 1688–1697 Nine Years' War – 680,000 killed in action[1]
• 1689–1692 First Jacobite Rising
• 1700 Lithuanian Civil War
• 1700–1721 Great Northern War – 30,000 Russians killed in action[2]
• 1701–1713 War of the Spanish Succession – 1,251,000 killed in action[1]
• 1703–1711 Rákóczi's War of Independence
• 1707–1708 Bulavin Rebellion
• 1712 Toggenburg War
• 1714–1718 Ottoman-Venetian War
• 1715–1716 Jacobite rising of 1715
• 1716–1718 Austro-Turkish War
• 1718–1720 War of the Quadruple Alliance – 25,000 killed in action[1]
• 1722–1723 Russo-Persian War
• 1727–1729 British-Spanish War – 15,000 killed in action[1]
• 1733–1738 War of the Polish Succession – 88,000 killed in action[1]
• 1735–1739 Russo-Turkish War
• 1737–1739 Austro-Turkish War
• 1740–1748 War of the Austrian Succession – 359,000 killed in action[1]
• 1740–1763 Silesian Wars
• 1741–1743 Russo-Swedish War
• 1745–1746 Jacobite rising of 1745
• 1756–1763 Seven Years' War – 992,000 killed in action[1]
• 1757 Georgian-Ottoman Battle
• 1763–1864 Russo-Circassian War
• 1768–1772 War of the Bar Confederation
• 1768–1774 Russo–Turkish War
• 1770 Georgian–Ottoman Battle
• 1770 Orlov Revolt
• 1774–1775 Pugachev's Rebellion
• 1775–1783 American Revolutionary War
• 1778–1779 War of the Bavarian Succession
• 1784 Kettle War
• 1784–1785 Revolt of Horea, Cloșca and Crișan
• 1785 Battle of the Sunja
• 1787 Dutch Patriot Revolt
• 1787–1792 Russo-Turkish War
• 1788–1791 Austro-Turkish War
• 1788–1790 Russo-Swedish War
• 1790 Saxon Peasants' Revolt
• 1792 Polish–Russian War of 1792
• 1792–1802 French Revolutionary Wars – 663,000 killed in action[1]
• 1794 Kościuszko Uprising
• 1795 Battle of Krtsanisi
• 1798 Irish Rebellion of 1798
• 1798 Peasants' War
• 1803 Irish Rebellion of 1803
• 1803 Souliote War
• 1803–1815 Napoleonic Wars
• 1804–1813 First Serbian Uprising
• 1804–1813 Russo-Persian War
• 1806–1812 Russo-Turkish War
• 1808–1809 Finnish War
• 1809 Polish–Austrian War