What do you mean by some basic military technology? People were not complete morons back then, and they actually had the best military technology what their contemporary industry and economy could support, and had the best strategy regarding the tools they had access to.
To give a simple example, gunpowder is quite easy to make. You don’t think the industry of the times would support its production?
They just started having gunpowder in the era of the question, but for a few centuries the guns were very crude and ineffective, and you couldn’t make any better guns without better metalworking. There is another question about how you could make a modern gun in medieval times, and the answer is, even if you had a complete schematic it would border on impossible.
such a basic thing as a stirrup took a surprisingly long time to get to Europe
They already had stirrups in the 13th century.
About the strategy. Make up a better strategy using only the tools they had access to, and I (or anyone well-read in that time period) will show you how they would beat you.
I was making a more general point: it is not true that the military technology (at any age and for every society) was the best their industry an economy would support.
I (or anyone well-read in that time period) will show you how they would beat you.
No, you will not. The simple reason is that you cannot show me anything—an argument of the kind “My cavalry charge would destroy your left flank! No, my left flank will withstand the charge and scatter the cavalry!” cannot be settled.
an argument of the kind “My cavalry charge would destroy your left flank! No, my left flank will withstand the charge and scatter the cavalry!” cannot be settled.
I was talking about strategy, not tactical movements, and those can generally be settled. A lot of people, for example, come up with ideas like “people should stand further apart so they will not be such an easy target for arrows / muskets” or come up with maneuvers which work well in computer strategy games but wouldn’t work without instant communication, etc. If it’s a “fridge logic” kind of think, like “hey, why didn’t they just think of doing X”, they probably did think of it, or even did try it in the past and failed.
My point was that no matter how good you think you are in modern sciences and no matter how intelligent you are, you probably couldn’t lead a medieval army better than someone who has a lot of experience in doing so, especially without spending years of getting familiarized with the time and place you ended up in. They are not chimpanzees with much less mental capabilities than a human, they are humans just like you, and would probably fare just as well as you in the modern world if they were raised here from a young enough age. And by having a lot of experience in their method of warfare, they would have the advantage over you if you had access to the same tools like them. An exception might be if you know of a historical battle so you know what the enemy did and you can use that advantage in advance, but even that thing would only work if the battle took place soon after your arrival (or you didn’t do anything significant until then) because of the butterfly effect. And in that case, without having created a reputation there, good luck convincing the leader of an army to listen to you.
I was talking about strategy, not tactical movements, and those can generally be settled.
No, I still don’t think so. In even more general terms you’re talking about history counterfactuals and those cannot be settled. You’re basically thinking of the case “but what if my opponent is really stupid and suggests stupid things” :-)
no matter how good you think you are in modern sciences and no matter how intelligent you are, you probably couldn’t lead a medieval army better than someone who has a lot of experience in doing so
Certainly true. But I could probably be a very valuable adviser :-) The reason is that if I were to know military history well enough, I would know what works and what doesn’t without the cost of the trial-and-error discovery.
Take a bit more ancient example: the Greek phalanx. It was considered to be an excellent formation for quite a long time, and yet the way to beat it turned out to be trivial: use highly mobile light slingers to harass the unwieldy phalanx until it falls apart. If you happen to know that, you could be a very helpful adviser to a Greek (or Persian :-D) general a century or two earlier.
Knowing how the strategy and tactics evolved in the “future”, which paths failed and which did not is highly valuable knowledge.
Take a bit more ancient example: the Greek phalanx. It was considered to be an excellent formation for quite a long time, and yet the way to beat it turned out to be trivial: use highly mobile light slingers to harass the unwieldy phalanx until it falls apart. If you happen to know that, you could be a very helpful adviser to a Greek (or Persian :-D) general a century or two earlier.
Peltasts were commonplace in Greek warfare; they didn’t displace the phalanx, or prove the phalanx’s weakness, they supported the phalanx formations. This is the issue; war is considerably more complex than a “Formation X beats formation Y” equation. Roman legions continued using variants of phalanx formations centuries after the Greek and Persian war.
That said, there is technology that could be brought back to revolutionize warfare: Logistics. Modern statistical methodologies would be an incredible asset. But being the guy calculating how much food to bring and when to send deliveries isn’t as exciting.
This seems like a Catch-22 situation.
The original point was how to build your reputation at the beginning. Even if we assume you had some brilliant strategic ideas (which I still doubt, but let’s assume you had), how would you convince them to let you, a random stranger, become their advisor?
You will need to be trusted to be allowed to lead their army, but you intended to achieve a brilliant victory to become trusted.
Sterilization is easy—all you need is boiling water.
As to diseases, what you need first of all is not washing hands, but rather separation of drinking water and human excrement (aka sanitation).
Some basic military technology should also be highly useful to raise your credibility :-)
What do you mean by some basic military technology? People were not complete morons back then, and they actually had the best military technology what their contemporary industry and economy could support, and had the best strategy regarding the tools they had access to.
Did they, now? To give a simple example, gunpowder is quite easy to make. You don’t think the industry of the times would support its production?
To give another example, such a basic thing as a stirrup took a surprisingly long time to get to Europe.
And why do you think so?
They just started having gunpowder in the era of the question, but for a few centuries the guns were very crude and ineffective, and you couldn’t make any better guns without better metalworking. There is another question about how you could make a modern gun in medieval times, and the answer is, even if you had a complete schematic it would border on impossible.
They already had stirrups in the 13th century.
About the strategy. Make up a better strategy using only the tools they had access to, and I (or anyone well-read in that time period) will show you how they would beat you.
I was making a more general point: it is not true that the military technology (at any age and for every society) was the best their industry an economy would support.
No, you will not. The simple reason is that you cannot show me anything—an argument of the kind “My cavalry charge would destroy your left flank! No, my left flank will withstand the charge and scatter the cavalry!” cannot be settled.
I was talking about strategy, not tactical movements, and those can generally be settled. A lot of people, for example, come up with ideas like “people should stand further apart so they will not be such an easy target for arrows / muskets” or come up with maneuvers which work well in computer strategy games but wouldn’t work without instant communication, etc. If it’s a “fridge logic” kind of think, like “hey, why didn’t they just think of doing X”, they probably did think of it, or even did try it in the past and failed.
My point was that no matter how good you think you are in modern sciences and no matter how intelligent you are, you probably couldn’t lead a medieval army better than someone who has a lot of experience in doing so, especially without spending years of getting familiarized with the time and place you ended up in. They are not chimpanzees with much less mental capabilities than a human, they are humans just like you, and would probably fare just as well as you in the modern world if they were raised here from a young enough age. And by having a lot of experience in their method of warfare, they would have the advantage over you if you had access to the same tools like them. An exception might be if you know of a historical battle so you know what the enemy did and you can use that advantage in advance, but even that thing would only work if the battle took place soon after your arrival (or you didn’t do anything significant until then) because of the butterfly effect. And in that case, without having created a reputation there, good luck convincing the leader of an army to listen to you.
No, I still don’t think so. In even more general terms you’re talking about history counterfactuals and those cannot be settled. You’re basically thinking of the case “but what if my opponent is really stupid and suggests stupid things” :-)
Certainly true. But I could probably be a very valuable adviser :-) The reason is that if I were to know military history well enough, I would know what works and what doesn’t without the cost of the trial-and-error discovery.
Take a bit more ancient example: the Greek phalanx. It was considered to be an excellent formation for quite a long time, and yet the way to beat it turned out to be trivial: use highly mobile light slingers to harass the unwieldy phalanx until it falls apart. If you happen to know that, you could be a very helpful adviser to a Greek (or Persian :-D) general a century or two earlier.
Knowing how the strategy and tactics evolved in the “future”, which paths failed and which did not is highly valuable knowledge.
Peltasts were commonplace in Greek warfare; they didn’t displace the phalanx, or prove the phalanx’s weakness, they supported the phalanx formations. This is the issue; war is considerably more complex than a “Formation X beats formation Y” equation. Roman legions continued using variants of phalanx formations centuries after the Greek and Persian war.
That said, there is technology that could be brought back to revolutionize warfare: Logistics. Modern statistical methodologies would be an incredible asset. But being the guy calculating how much food to bring and when to send deliveries isn’t as exciting.
This seems like a Catch-22 situation. The original point was how to build your reputation at the beginning. Even if we assume you had some brilliant strategic ideas (which I still doubt, but let’s assume you had), how would you convince them to let you, a random stranger, become their advisor?
You will need to be trusted to be allowed to lead their army, but you intended to achieve a brilliant victory to become trusted.
No, it wasn’t. The OP specified (see point (3)) that you could have all the resources you need just for asking.