Why do nomads even have walls?

[X_FloW]

It is clear from the recent Dev Diaries that apparently you can build walls and siege nomadic holding. Two words you never expect to see in a sentence together.

Just a quick look at a history book will tell you what 'nomad' actually means and why for centuries no one has been able to control the steppe or subjugate its people up until 19-20th century because people were constantly on the move and you don't just "siege" a nomadic settlement because they can just... leave.

Add to this the ability to summon a fleet and embark your horse archers overseas...

 

[EricArthur]

Ehm, you seem to have a very limited understanding of what nomadism means.

The fact that the population moved around to find pastoral lands does not mean that the idea of fortifying important positions like river fords, trade routes and supply caches was beyond them. A khan would not necessarily be on the move all the time; his court and entourage, along with his soldiers, would stay in a certain place for a while on occasion and if that place is likely to be under attack, they would build walls and other fortifications.

The idea that nomads are always up and ready to go is just bad history.

 

[Delterius]

People think of the steppe like a big expanse of nothing. Its far from that. Instead picture that the crafts and shepherding surpluses created by the steppe societies have to go somewhere, and they aren't just traded with China or West Asia for luxury goods. They also support settlements within the steppe itself.

 

[EricArthur]

People think of the steppe like a big expanse of nothing. Its far from that. Instead picture that the crafts and shepherding surpluses created by the steppe societies have to go somewhere, and they aren't just traded with China or West Asia for luxury goods. They also support settlements within the steppe itself.

A place like Samarkand comes to mind. It was one of the most prosperous cities in all of Eurasia, on the edge of a whole load of steppe land. Nomadic peoples have always gone to places like that to exchange goods. Smaller settlements existed on the way there, of course, to rest, graze etc.

I have visited nomadic peoples in our current day (Bedouin) and while they may move their camp depending on their needs, they do make trips to central hubs to engage in trade, buy necessities, engage in diplomacy... and those places are definitely "fortified" compared to the land around them. So portaying those places as CK settlements seems justified.

 

[klopkr]

It is clear from the recent Dev Diaries that apparently you can build walls and siege nomadic holding. Two words you never expect to see in a sentence together.

Just a quick look at a history book will tell you what 'nomad' actually means and why for centuries no one has been able to control the steppe or subjugate its people up until 19-20th century because people were constantly on the move and you don't just "siege" a nomadic settlement because they can just... leave.

Add to this the ability to summon a fleet and embark your horse archers overseas...

You should really crack open one of those history books.

 

[tribnia]

There're still wolves or other beasts on steppe, whatever, they are nomads, not druids.

 

[apollo1989vieten]

I imagine the nomadic base of operations could probably be at least as well fortified as Roman legionary camps.

Sedentary kingdoms had a hard time on the steppe partly because it was harder to force a completely mounted foe to give pitched battle. When Darius the Great tried a punitive attack against the Scythians in Europe, they constantly avoided engaging Darius’s men in battle. The Persian had to be content with scorching the land when they decided to withdraw.

 

[GhostDanny]

I would assume their static fortifications wouldn't be all that impressive.
Just enough to give their very mobile force to arrive in time to defend.

 

[Pups' Socks]

It is clear from the recent Dev Diaries that apparently you can build walls and siege nomadic holding. Two words you never expect to see in a sentence together.

Just a quick look at a history book will tell you what 'nomad' actually means and why for centuries no one has been able to control the steppe or subjugate its people up until 19-20th century because people were constantly on the move and you don't just "siege" a nomadic settlement because they can just... leave.

Add to this the ability to summon a fleet and embark your horse archers overseas...

Yeah, sure, it is known for a fact that Attila’s settlement had no walls and had no buildins, Priscus says as much… oh wait

Kreka - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[EricArthur]

I would assume their static fortifications wouldn't be all that impressive.
Just enough to give their very mobile force to arrive in time to defend.

Depends on what you consider impressive... Look up ancient Almaty.

Just like you put a lock on your front door, which you usually should be able to reach pretty quickly, you also put your money and other valuables in a vault, which is more difficult to breach.

A nomadic lord would benefit from his highly mobile force being ready to attack the besiegers in a quick fashion, yes, but if it's worth something to you, you make sure they face some obstacles while you're on your way there.

The most fortified settlements were, indeed, bordering more settled peoples so the nomadic lord doesn't have to turn around his entire army while on campaign in case of an attack.

 

[EricArthur]

I imagine the nomadic base of operations could probably be at least as well fortified as Roman legionary camps.

Sedentary kingdoms had a hard time on the steppe partly because it was harder to force a completely mounted foe to give pitched battle. When Darius the Great tried a punitive attack against the Scythians in Europe, they constantly avoided engaging Darius’s men in battle. The Persian had to be content with scorching the land when they decided to withdraw.

That is a pretty good comparison and like the legions of old, they were able to construct those in a very quick fashion while also taking advantage of the landscape.

Higher risk targets would be protected with stone walls along important trade routes but like you say, putting up a pallisade, a ditch and a couple of watch towers takes little effort. When Darius spotted a Scythian army, they would retreat quickly into such settlements. It was clearly part of their strategy.

It is effective and fascinating. People should stop pushing the myth that nomadic peoples are constantly on the move. Pastoralism doesn't work like that. Armies may move very quickly trying to control territory but that is, well, an army on campaign, not the civilian population...

 

[naq29]

People think of the steppe like a big expanse of nothing. Its far from that. Instead picture that the crafts and shepherding surpluses created by the steppe societies have to go somewhere, and they aren't just traded with China or West Asia for luxury goods. They also support settlements within the steppe itself.

A song of ice and fire by GRRM gave the idea of "Great Grass Sea" - a VERY big expanse of nothing consisted of naked horse herders wandering around aimlessly without any concept of territory, tribes, organizations, military structure, cultures, or herding anything other than horses - a quite bad example of nomads in media.

 

[apollo1989vieten]

A song of ice and fire by GRRM gave the idea of "Great Grass Sea" - a VERY big expanse of nothing consisted of naked horse herders wandering around aimlessly without any concept of territory, tribes, organizations, military structure, cultures, or herding anything other than horses - a quite bad example of nomads in media.

The steppe had a lower density of permanent settlements than the world outside the steppe. This is another reason why outsiders had a hard time exerting control over the steppe.

 

[GhostDanny]

Depends on what you consider impressive... Look up ancient Almaty.

Just like you put a lock on your front door, which you usually should be able to reach pretty quickly, you also put your money and other valuables in a vault, which is more difficult to breach.

A nomadic lord would benefit from his highly mobile force being ready to attack the besiegers in a quick fashion, yes, but if it's worth something to you, you make sure they face some obstacles while you're on your way there.

The most fortified settlements were, indeed, bordering more settled peoples so the nomadic lord doesn't have to turn around his entire army while on campaign in case of an attack.

I guess like:

I imagine the nomadic base of operations could probably be at least as well fortified as Roman legionary camps.

Maybe a bit stronger for really important targets.
Ingame I would say a fort level 4-5 max, maybe 6 if the terrain also lends really well to defence.

 

[apollo1989vieten]

I guess like:


Maybe a bit stronger for really important targets.
Ingame I would say a fort level 4-5 max, maybe 6 if the terrain also lends really well to defence.

The nomadic cities would probably be level 4-5, but I don’t think that nomads set up their base of operation for their grazing in hilly or mountains areas.

 

[Pups' Socks]

A song of ice and fire by GRRM gave the idea of "Great Grass Sea" - a VERY big expanse of nothing consisted of naked horse herders wandering around aimlessly without any concept of territory, tribes, organizations, military structure, cultures, or herding anything other than horses - a quite bad example of nomads in media.

No, no. They are nudist equestrian enthusiasts that love outdoor activities.

 

[L'Afrique]

We went to Kazakhstan last summer. You can still see fortifications and buildings built by the naked, blood-drinking horse nomads of the CK2 period. Get a load of these pathetic defenses, shoddily built at Taraz.

Or the ruins of the pitiful hill fort at Otyrar, nothing, nothing like what was being built by the mighty Normans. Not like there are massive walls, a keep, a village, and a commanding view for miles around. Standing atop, you can tell it was the sort of thing you would throw up and then abandon, nothing worth defending here.

 

[GhostDanny]

The nomadic cities would probably be level 4-5, but I don’t think that nomads set up their base of operation for their grazing in hilly or mountains areas.

Players might do it for some reason.
And hill grazing is a thing too.

Maybe also some mining operations could need it as well

 

[Pups' Socks]

Players might do it for some reason.
And hill grazing is a thing too.

Maybe also some mining operations could need it as well

Something else I've not seen brought up by anyone is fishing. Some nomads of the Khazar Steppes / Dasht-i Qipchaq fished if they were nearby lakes or rivers they could fish, though I don't know if they used boats.

As for mining, Rouran khagan calls Bumin Qaghan of the Ashina his "blacksmith slave" when Bumin wants a Rouran princess as a bride so perhaps they mined as well?

We went to Kazakhstan last summer. You can still see fortifications and buildings built by the naked, blood-drinking horse nomads of the CK2 period. Get a load of these pathetic defenses, shoddily built at Taraz.View attachment 1282123
View attachment 1282125
Or the ruins of the pitiful hill fort at Otyrar, nothing, nothing like what was being built by the mighty Normans. Not like there are massive walls, a keep, a village, and a commanding view for miles around. Standing atop, you can tell it was the sort of thing you would throw up and then abandon, nothing worth defending here.

Wow, next you will come and suggest that many Norman lords were building small wooden forts too.

 

[GhostDanny]

Wow, next you will come and suggest that many Norman lords were building small wooden forts too.

A lot of Norman lords build small wooden forts too ^^