Best weapon of ancient war

[Spoonist]

I don't understand. Am I just wrong about Vikings? If so, why the hell did you say I was insane?

Well, presumably only a nutter would go into the Vikings when talking about the deep, deep inherent flaws with trying to build a 'warrior caste', unless there's some meaning to the divergence. There wasn't one, not one that's relevent to the dangers of encouraging idle soldiers to want to take things from you.

Contrary to popular opinion it's not always about you.


His viking response was directed to me, after I suggested that he should borrow traits from them for his culture.

Since several people are all trying to talk to him at once, his posts are bound to be responding to more than one person to save time.

[Shortie]

Okay, then how do I manage to have loyal soldiers who can't be bought off to the highest paying rebellious general, but still have a reasonable situation?

Well, you could try the Roman solution of having a professional army which was led by nobility on short cycles in and out. Keep them moving to and from the capital, and inbetween armies, and you can limit the loyalty they have a chance to build up.

Of course, then note that in the long run they ended up with Julius Ceasar taking over, and plenty more generals became emperors after him.

[wolveraptor]

It seems that you are lacking a classical education. Many of your opinions vs history seems to come from popculture.

If I could just pause to ask what pop-cultural icon talks about the history of Viking invasions...?

They conquered scotland, england, and most of france in the west

Bah, that was just William the Conquerer, iirc. He wasn't considered truly Viking. Unless I'm totally confused on this issue. His peoples' culture was somewhat removed from that of the original Norse.
If you are referring to the Danish conquest of the Northern section of the UK, note that the same people did not conquer France.

While at the same time founding Novgorod and uniting what is now Ukraine and Russia in the east.

Your statements are misleading. Only the Rus tribe managed to unite the area, and their "Empire" was not actively expanding. They basically just ruled over the populations, instituting few major reforms, until they were absorbed. They were in no way connected with William's Empire. This was not one big united Viking front.

While trading with everyone as far reaching as western africa to constantinople.

Whoopdee frickin' doo. Only wusses trade. People with balls conquer.
But in all seriousness, I don't plan on building another Carthaginian commercial empire.

All this viking shit is basically a series of disconnected conquests made by individual small leaders. They never attempted to pull the entire set of conquests together into an Empire to rival Rome's or anything. This is not what my people will do.

[Patrick Degan]

Okay, then how do I manage to have loyal soldiers who can't be bought off to the highest paying rebellious general, but still have a reasonable situation?

Well, you could try the Roman solution of having a professional army which was led by nobility on short cycles in and out. Keep them moving to and from the capital, and inbetween armies, and you can limit the loyalty they have a chance to build up.

Of course, then note that in the long run they ended up with Julius Ceasar taking over, and plenty more generals became emperors after him.

What you do is depict a Rome-like military which receives its pay directly from the State as opposed to the commanders of the legions. Marius' intended reform which paved the way to so much of the political chaos which helped chloroform the Republic and periodically destabilised the Empire derived entirely from allowing the generals to have responsibility for recruitment and pay.

[wolveraptor]

I could also make sure to quickly cycle generals so that veterans were used to many different tactics brought in by many different people. It would also serve to reduce the potential independence and power of generals: they wouldn't have an army that they always worked with, and could begin to manipulate through bribery and such.

[Patrick Degan]

I could also make sure to quickly cycle generals so that veterans were used to many different tactics brought in by many different people. It would also serve to reduce the potential independence and power of generals: they wouldn't have an army that they always worked with, and could begin to manipulate through bribery and such.

Exactly how practical a proposition is that in a world where the fastest communication is by horseback and armies could be days or weeks away? And have you considered just how disruptive that would be to both command and morale, particularly in the middle of a war?

[tharkûn]

That's why you tell them about the 70 virgins waiting for them when they die gloriously in battle. They will do anything and everything for you if they do not care about the life they have now.

They tried that with the Mamelukes who were Islamic salve soldiers directly loyal to the sultan or caliph. You will notice two "Mameluke" dynasties arising in Egypt; the whole religious fanatic slave soldiers was tried and failed.

...I thought most of the people would own land. If I had a vast and spacious Empire with regards to the given population (which I intend to): land owning could be relatively cheap.

Land = wealth at this time period. Unfortunately it took a good deal of liquid wealth to make that equality hold true. If you had a bad year you ended up having to buy food and maybe seed. If you have no liquid cash reserves you either had to borrow money, which tended to eventually force you into insolvency and forfeiture of land, or try to find temporary wage work to feed the family - which also sucked as bad years tended to decrease the number of jobs to be had.

Land will concentrate in ancient economies without active intervention (which will be resisted like hell by the landed classes). Zero sum economics tend to only allow the rich to earn interest and they will eventually buy out most everyone else.

There is no easy way around the limitations of ancient economics. Soldiers are based off food and to a lesser extent wealth; you simply have to deal with that. Dedicated professional soldiers are a drain on society unless they are on conquest or pillaging; and the more you conquest the more expensive it will be to run and police the empire. Further the more dedicated your troops are (Romans with 20 year commitments vs Athenian hoplites with a few years), the more power they will have over the rest of the populace and will eventually to try to exert it (very few societies manage not to have the soldiers rule).

The nature of power, warfare, economics, etc. was all decidely different back then. TANSTAAFL was even more evident.

[Spoonist]

It seems that you are lacking a classical education. Many of your opinions vs history seems to come from popculture.

If I could just pause to ask what pop-cultural icon talks about the history of Viking invasions...?

In your last reply it seemed that you only knew about the viking raids which led me to (problably falsely) assume that you only knew of Norseman history through Hollywood or similar popculture, as in popular culture not as in pop music.

Your statements are misleading. Only the Rus tribe managed to unite the area, and their "Empire" was not actively expanding. They basically just ruled over the populations, instituting few major reforms, until they were absorbed. They were in no way connected with William's Empire. This was not one big united Viking front.

I agree fully, I was just trying to make a short recap.
They where never united and did most of their warring amongst themselves

Whoopdee frickin' doo. Only wusses trade. People with balls conquer.

Its statements like this that makes me think that you want to make a totally fictional story and disregard history. It's much more fun. Reality is so much more boring.

All this viking shit is basically a series of disconnected conquests made by individual small leaders. They never attempted to pull the entire set of conquests together into an Empire to rival Rome's or anything. This is not what my people will do.

The only reason I mentioned them was that their culture was that of a warrior culture, that led them to be able to muster significant parts of the population if needed. Their culture also made all males regardless of occupation train in martial arts, like wrestling, sword, axe and bow. It's more of inspiration just like a pointed you to sparta early on in the thread.

[SylasGaunt]

Well it isn't the best weapon of ancient war but I was always fond of ye olde' Scorpion-Bomb.

[wolveraptor]

Further the more dedicated your troops are (Romans with 20 year commitments vs Athenian hoplites with a few years), the more power they will have over the rest of the populace and will eventually to try to exert it (very few societies manage not to have the soldiers rule).

Which would mean that the general becomes king/emperor. That's fine with me, as long as he has advisors to help him run the economic side of the empire. Almost no one was excluded or disconnected from the army totally. Farmers still set aside one day a week for battle-training, and a significant portion of the population became proffessional soldiers, whose commitments were longer than simply 1 battle or campaign.

[Knife]

Of course; you should write you story the way you feel fit; that said, to impose some semblence of realism to you story, you must face the same realities that other 'in time' nations did. You may have the benifit of history to aide you, but you must face certain realities when creating you 'nation' that will vie for the world.

In such a vein; I propose the following.

Basic Army of 'insert here'.

One Army consists of 5,000 men. It is arranged off of one general and his five sub units. Heavy spear, light spear, Calvary, Supporting weapons, and Service.

Under each general, there are five Captains who represent each sub units. Each captain is in charge of his/her own 'division' and those particular units are; Heavy infantry, Light Infantry, Calvary, Special weapons, and sercive units.

Break down by numbers; 1500 heavy infantry. 1500 lighty infantry. 500 Horse. 500 Special weapons. 500 Service.

Heavy infantry comprises of 30 blocks of 50 man spear units. Each Heavy spear is split into three units of 500 men commanded by a Lt. Each Lt. commands 10 blocks of infanty. 49 troopers and one 'commander' who leads them. The Heavy spear are front line troops who sport iron armor over the normal tunic uniform. They are issued as a standard kit; cloth uniform with iron linked mail shirt and iron greaves and gauntlets. The standard helm is issued to complet the armor. Offensively, the heavy infantryman is issued the short sword, long spear, and heavy shield comprised of wood, banded with iron and wrapped in leather.

Grouped in blocks of 50, they are designed and trained to fight in tight formation in shield wall tactics.

Light infantry is designed around mobility while still keeping the basics of the 'heavy' infantry. In blocks of 50, they sport a javilin and the traditional short sword and a smaller shield. Lighter, they serve as flanking units and rear guard, as well as keeping the ability to pepper the enemy with javilines right before the enemy engages the battle line.

Special weapons. These comprise both the bowmen and siege weapons.

Calvary. Self explanatory.

Service. Basic soldier and camp dweller.


To run the army; any person of either your nation or of a conquerored nation who wishes to join you army, can. Obviously, nobles will get some dipensation while mid level or bottom level gobber gets basic treatment.

The basic building block of your army is the peasent. He who is poor and his future is bleak. To get them to join, structure you society in such a way as benifits to that society is awarded through military service. Granted, most of the poor could be drawn there through pay. But a certain amount of 'nationalism' wouldn't hurt.

Each term of 'paid' service is two years. The first two years consists of; sic months of 'service' in which the recruit splits his time between basic formation training and basic weapons training. Mix in formation training, marching ect..... Train the bastards to throw a javilin and how to move in a formation. Later, how to turn left and right, ect. Int here, they set up camp, break camp. Cook food, ect....

After the six months; they are introduced to the light infantry. They serve the next 18 months in the light infantry. Learning more formations and more basic combat in 'flanking units'.

After the first two years, you can leave or re enlist. After you first two years you can try to transfer up to 'heavy' or if you were good as a cook or a servant, you can go back to service.

If you get transfered to 'heavy' you get more training in 'heavy' combat with a spear instead of a javilin and more 'shield wall' tactics.

Special discompansation goes to those with aptitude and/or experience with either horse or bow. Those get to go to those divisions.

This way, no matter what, each member has a basic understanding of ancient warfare. You can use the service as 'camp guard' with a flanking unit with the larger heavy infantry. Even the calvary and bowmen have a basic understanding of unit tactics since they served as light infantry at one point.

Light infantry represents the same, but a more mobile force.

[wolveraptor]

Is the liklihood of having your spear break high in battle? I thought I'd need my heavy infantry to also carry backup short swords.

I had hoped that much of the heavy infantry would be proffessional soldiers, who join the army as early as is practical, and leave when they are too old to function as an effective soldier (unless they seek to pursue a commanding position). At retirement age, they would settle down into any job they desired, helped along by the state. Most would be farmers, living on the frontier.

Peasants would not be drafted for periods of time, but rather specific battles.

My people would have an obsession with being remembered for their great achievements. The lucky man, to them, was one who was immortalized in statue. Since the culture valued war skills, accomplishments in those areas were considered the noblest of all. It also helped that Veterans almost always became political leaders in their communities.

At my desired time period, I can think of only the battering ram as a "siege weapon", persay. Are there any others?

[Knife]

Is the liklihood of having your spear break high in battle? I thought I'd need my heavy infantry to also carry backup short swords.

In a word, yes. In a tight shield wall or phalanx, pushing up against another such formation, you'll have a shit load of men basically pushing each other with the weight of those behind them pushing as well. In such an enviroment, I would assume that spears would snap, even if they did so while skewering a man.

So, yeah, a short sword or long knife or some such would be a good secondary weapon. You could probably have a 'standard' short sword for both your infantry and for a secondary weapon for bowmen as well.

I had hoped that much of the heavy infantry would be proffessional soldiers, who join the army as early as is practical, and leave when they are too old to function as an effective soldier (unless they seek to pursue a commanding position). At retirement age, they would settle down into any job they desired, helped along by the state. Most would be farmers, living on the frontier.

You'd have to implement some semblence of incintives for them. For my example above; you could use the light infantry as a training device, so that everyone knows the basics of the battle line and formations. Have a term of service be ~2 years. The first two years, pay them roughly what a standard peasent makes, plus the proverbial three hots and a cot.

After their first hitch, they can reenlist for another 2 year stint with a pay raise to 'standard soldiers pay'. What that is will depend greatly on what you can afford and what the average income of the area is.

You can further impliment a Time in Service like bonus system. Say that some one makes it to 5 years. Well, congradulations soldier, you are now a Soldier Third Class, here's a pay raise.

Wow, you made 10 years. Congradulations, Soldier Second Class, here's another pay raise.

Holly shit, Soldier. You made it 15 years. You are now a Soldier First Class and here's you're raise.

20 years retierment and a healthy plot of land.

A further incintive would be a type of serverence pay for those who make certain TOS marks. Take the 5-10-15 year incriments and at 5 years if a soldier decieds to leave, pay him a 1-year pay severence. 10 years gets two years pay. 15 you can 'retire early' with 5 years of pay extra, or you can go for the 20 year plan with 5 years of pay and a plot of land.

These are easy to impliment and give the common soldier easily recognisable goals to make.

Peasants would not be drafted for periods of time, but rather specific battles.

If your ultimate goal is an Alexandrian type world domination, you will need a steady influx of recruits. To disreguard 'peasants' is folly. Again, using my example above; constantly recruit new personel from the peasentry. They are many, they are poor and they are generally looking for a way to improve their lot.

With my incintive programes above, it's easy to guess you might get a lot of recruits. When they join, you put them into my 'tiered system'. That way you get six months of 'service' from them. Guarding the camp, cooking the food, shit work, ect.. Durring that time they get to familurize themselves with the way the army works and get basic instruction in formations and basic spear/sword play.

After six months, you dump them into light infantry to further their experience with formations and such. Your light infantry will constantly get 'new' people attached to it.

From here, you recruit to other services. After their first 2 years, if they were a really good cook, stick them back their for their next hitch. If they were a really good 'spearman', put them in the heavy infantry. If they had pre exsisting skills in horsemanship or archery, or even engineering, recruit them into those divisions.

This way, every recruit gets a 'training' time in the light infantry where they learn the basics of the tactics and strategies of that type of warfare. If they move on to other divisions, they still have the experience in the grunts to appreciate and understand their role.

The other divisions get the advantage of recruiting from a pool that already understands the basis skill sets of shield wall/phalanx warfare. They get a guy who probably already has combat experience and knows how to basically use a sword and a spear.

My people would have an obsession with being remembered for their great achievements. The lucky man, to them, was one who was immortalized in statue. Since the culture valued war skills, accomplishments in those areas were considered the noblest of all. It also helped that Veterans almost always became political leaders in their communities.

Sure, but you should be careful in putting too much emphasis on 'individual accomplishemnts' rather than unit ones. In the type of warfare practiced back then, berzerking 'warriors' were easily cut down by disiplined formations. If you have numbnuts in your formations who run out of them to 'gain glory', you weaken your formation and leave it vulnerable.

The modern version of this is the adage; "No one wants to share a foxhole with Rambo."

At my desired time period, I can think of only the battering ram as a "siege weapon", persay. Are there any others?[/quote]

[wolveraptor]

So, yeah, a short sword or long knife or some such would be a good secondary weapon. You could probably have a 'standard' short sword for both your infantry and for a secondary weapon for bowmen as well.

The short sword would be standard for infantry, but bowmen wouldn't have the shield that makes the whole short sword concept work. Short swords suck ass unless you can get close enough to make the fatal stab. You need a shield to get that close.

Bowmen would probably have a military rapier, or some long, quick blade in the hopes that they could get past an attacking infantry's defenses without getting too close.

You'd have to implement some semblence of incintives for [proffessional soldiers].

Your system of increased pay based on length of service works well. I was originally considering giving the best performing soldiers a cushy life after retirement: servants, a mansion, free food, tax benefits, but I didn't want to encourage too much individualism. An army needs cooperation, not heroic Celtic-type fighters.

I was wondering though: should I pay them at all on the spot? What are they going to do with gold or whatever monetary unit in the military? Military leave isn't really possible during this time period because of the distances involved, and the expense of transport, so they wouldn't be spending it at towns. I was thinking that the longer they stayed, the more land/servant-slaves they would get after retirement, with the cap being about 22 years (assuming the military service starts at age 18).

Or would this create a situation where people couldn't wait to get out of the military and enjoy their land, and thus perform poorly?

Concerning peasants: I realize now that calling one set of people "proffessional soldiers" and saying another set is not is innaccurate. Everyone goes through the same training, and those who choose to stay longer are simply more battle-hardened. Since anyone who joins has the potential to stay for as long as possible, anyone could be a "proffessional soldier". In the end, though, most of them end up being farmers. Therefore, there is no line between pro soldiers and peasants, so peasants wouldn't be drafted for specific battles. In fact, drafting would be discouraged in my army, because volunteers tend to perform better. Draftees are only called upon for defense: if someone attacks us, instead of the other way around.

No one wants to share a foxhole with Rambo.

If one went out and managed to kill 15 enemy soldiers before dying, but left a hole in your formation and screwed everyone else, most people would say that you were greedy and avaricious in your quest for glory. Your name would be expunged from the record, and your own family would scorn your name. A soldier's version of accomplishment is not the same as, say, a chemist who would like to discover a new element or something on his own.

[wolveraptor]

One more thing: instead of changing generals often, I would make sure that there were always several generals who had equal parts of the army. That way, should one become rebellious, the others would be ordered to destroy him. In the event that all should conspire to seize the throne, then it's probably because the current king is doing a shitty job and deserves to be removed.

I think that most of the nobles in my society would be former generals or commanders.

[Patrick Degan]

One more thing: instead of changing generals often, I would make sure that there were always several generals who had equal parts of the army. That way, should one become rebellious, the others would be ordered to destroy him. In the event that all should conspire to seize the throne, then it's probably because the current king is doing a shitty job and deserves to be removed.

I think that most of the nobles in my society would be former generals or commanders.

Having just two generals of equal rank and command authority was what undid the Romans at Cannae. An army must have an overall commander whose authority is undisputed, elsewise confusion results and that is fatal on a battlefield.

[wolveraptor]

Of course one general would preside over a single battle (preferrably one who was familiar with the area), but couldn't multiple battles be going on at one time? Or am I thinking in too large a scale here? Today military operations often occur in different places simultaneously. Then, would there have been enough troops?

[Patrick Degan]

Of course one general would preside over a single battle (preferrably one who was familiar with the area), but couldn't multiple battles be going on at one time? Or am I thinking in too large a scale here? Today military operations often occur in different places simultaneously. Then, would there have been enough troops?

Ancient warfare tended to be an affair of steady marching and set-piece battles with the main force of both sides. It really wasn't until just about the time of America's Civil War that the concept of a multiple-front war with simultaneous campaigning in widely seperate locales truly came into vogue.

[HemlockGrey]

It really wasn't until just about the time of America's Civil War that the concept of a multiple-front war with simultaneous campaigning in widely seperate locales truly came into vogue.

[tharkûn]

Which would mean that the general becomes king/emperor. That's fine with me, as long as he has advisors to help him run the economic side of the empire. Almost no one was excluded or disconnected from the army totally. Farmers still set aside one day a week for battle-training, and a significant portion of the population became proffessional soldiers, whose commitments were longer than simply 1 battle or campaign.

It will not just be the general though. His subordinates, and given the limits of communications he need to have many, will also want a peice of the pie. You will also need to work out some system of succession so when the general-king dies the army doesn't dissolve into rival factions fighting over who should rule next.

The part time soldiers with one day a week at war practice is historical. The English required men to practice archery for several hours a week and had the bishop (for organizational and literacy reasons) report on their completion thereof. This ended up producing highly proficient longbowmen which were feared (by those with brains).

Is the liklihood of having your spear break high in battle? I thought I'd need my heavy infantry to also carry backup short swords.

Depends on the wood, craftmanship, over/underhanded stance, formation, and enemy armor. If you have formations pushing against each other, most certainly. You might have hundreds of pounds pushing from behind and a bad angle, spear breaks were common. You really want short swords for killing. Spears are excellent for holding the battle line, and indeed as long as you can keep the line togethor and the enemy in front, they are superior to most every other ancient weapon. However once you break the enemy's batteline you want swords to quickly dispatch the enemy. Likewise if you do get hit from the side or behind by light infantry your spears are going to be extremely cumbersome to redeploy against the new threat. You likely have a better chance even with secondary swords against such an attack.

At my desired time period, I can think of only the battering ram as a "siege weapon", persay. Are there any others?

Ballista, catapult (parituclarly the onager), and seige towers. Ballista could accurately throw heavy projectiles short range and had uses, as well as throwing lighter bolts longer ranges. Onagers were quite useful, for instance tossing a diseased corpse over the wall was always fun. Seige towers suffered from terrible mobility and high costs, but could quickly overcome walls in the night.

The short sword would be standard for infantry, but bowmen wouldn't have the shield that makes the whole short sword concept work. Short swords suck ass unless you can get close enough to make the fatal stab. You need a shield to get that close.

Not always. You could manage it if you were hitting flanks or rear; or if you were doing the whole mopping up the fleeing masses gig, and you do NOT want your archers wasting arrows on that.

It also depends on your bows just what type of shield one can manage.

Bowmen would probably have a military rapier, or some long, quick blade in the hopes that they could get past an attacking infantry's defenses without getting too close.

Bowmen should be kept away from the enemy so they can use their, you know bows. You give them swords primarily so that should they have to break and run they can gut loose enemies in their path. Likewise you want them to be able to stab the enemy in the back as his line breaks apart.

I was wondering though: should I pay them at all on the spot? What are they going to do with gold or whatever monetary unit in the military? Military leave isn't really possible during this time period because of the distances involved, and the expense of transport, so they wouldn't be spending it at towns.

The whores will follow the army and to a lesser extent so will the brewers. In any event normally after winning a hard battle you'd go take the city, possibly pillage a bit, and then spend some of the coin celebrating in the area.

I strongly reccomend paying them on campaign. Soldiers knew the mortality rates and they would want to eat, drink, and be merry for tommorrow they stand a good chance of dying.

Or would this create a situation where people couldn't wait to get out of the military and enjoy their land, and thus perform poorly?

Typicly unpaid troops, particularly on long campaigns became open to bribery, desertion, and insurrection.

If one went out and managed to kill 15 enemy soldiers before dying, but left a hole in your formation and screwed everyone else, most people would say that you were greedy and avaricious in your quest for glory.

It wouldn't matter. If you are playing spears leaving that hole will make your buddies vulnerable and most likely those who know you ran off won't survive to tell the tale. Discipline among units was paramount for every major ancient power. Those who had it won, those who didn't had the line broken and beaten and decimated.

One more thing: instead of changing generals often, I would make sure that there were always several generals who had equal parts of the army. That way, should one become rebellious, the others would be ordered to destroy him.

Been tried, failed. First you have the little problem that some generals will naturally like another general and be more than willing to play #2 to someone else's imperial granduer. Likewise you will have to deal with the fact that generals will die on campaign, both from enemy weapons and disease. It is entirely likely that at some point in time numerous generals will all be incapacitated and/or dead leaving a much smaller pool gaurd the realm. Lastly armies will have to leave the immediate vicinity. While few generals would take the capital during a major war, if enough armies go off to put down rebellions among conqueored rabble, slaughter hordes of ill organized barbarians, or just go raze a city that needs it ... then those remaining within marching distance may well elect to make a play for the throne. Controlling the armies was an intractable problem in antiquity, there are no simple solutions.

[wolveraptor]

It wouldn't matter. If you are playing spears leaving that hole will make your buddies vulnerable and most likely those who know you ran off won't survive to tell the tale. Discipline among units was paramount for every major ancient power. Those who had it won, those who didn't had the line broken and beaten and decimated.

If no one who knew him survived, his deeds would go unknown either way. It would be neither glory nor ignominy, simply anonymity.

It will not just be the general though. His subordinates, and given the limits of communications he need to have many, will also want a peice of the pie. You will also need to work out some system of succession so when the general-king dies the army doesn't dissolve into rival factions fighting over who should rule next.

I would have a general choose his successor as soon as he ascended to throne, and begin training him in rulership...stuff.
he part time soldiers with one day a week at war practice is historical.

The English required men to practice archery for several hours a week and had the bishop (for organizational and literacy reasons) report on their completion thereof. This ended up producing highly proficient longbowmen which were feared (by those with brains).

So how many practice days or practice time could I fit in to an average peasant's schedule before it adversely affected their jobs (particularly farmers)?

[wolveraptor]

I had an idea about layering my wooden shields with a thin coating of metal, just so that arrows and javelins wouldn't stick in them and ruin them.

[tharkûn]

I would have a general choose his successor as soon as he ascended to throne, and begin training him in rulership...stuff.

Which goes one of two ways:

A. The new king picks a young successor which pisses off all his subordinates who've worked harder and longer.

B. The new king picks an old successor who did "serve his time" but stands a good chance of never ascending to the throne, which makes regicide and usurption more likely.

So how many practice days or practice time could I fit in to an average peasant's schedule before it adversely affected their jobs (particularly farmers)?

Where do they live and what do they grow? In northern climates most farmers will have plenty of time to train during the winter, of course that presupposes you can feed the army during winter as well as get out and practice without freezing your balls off. As a rule of thumb I'd say a few hours a week would be practical.

I had an idea about layering my wooden shields with a thin coating of metal, just so that arrows and javelins wouldn't stick in them and ruin them.

Thin coats don't stop arrows and javelins sticking in them, a thrown javelin has enough momentum to go through hammered metal and imbed in the wood behind. If you put enough metal on the shield to keep a javelin out you run back into weight issues. Studding should be more effective, but I'm not sure even that is weight effective.

[wolveraptor]

Where do they live and what do they grow? In northern climates most farmers will have plenty of time to train during the winter, of course that presupposes you can feed the army during winter as well as get out and practice without freezing your balls off. As a rule of thumb I'd say a few hours a week would be practical.

Well, I was having them originate in the Indus river valley, but obviously, as they press north, things will need to be changed. Does a few hours a week also count the one day that would be totally taken off (kind've like Church on Sunday for Christians)?

A. The new king picks a young successor which pisses off all his subordinates who've worked harder and longer.

Easy: I make it so that the members of a king's court are only allowed to serve as long as the king's reign. When a new king comes to power, the old court is automatically deposed, and while still probably rich, have no real political standing.

[tharkûn]

Well, I was having them originate in the Indus river valley, but obviously, as they press north, things will need to be changed. Does a few hours a week also count the one day that would be totally taken off (kind've like Church on Sunday for Christians)?

Totally taken off isn't accurate, even the most Sabbath observant communities did some work on Sunday. I'd actually advise having archery practice on the day of rest, you don't want your archers tired, sweaty, and practicing in failing light (once they days work was done or before it began).

Easy: I make it so that the members of a king's court are only allowed to serve as long as the king's reign. When a new king comes to power, the old court is automatically deposed, and while still probably rich, have no real political standing.

Never going to work. You want a smooth transition of administration. Even most autocratic regime fails if you try to break in all the new administraters at once. Further there will be early deaths, particularly when plague strikes. Do you really think you could sustain four wholly different administrations in a matter of months?

There is no easy way to keep the warriors from trying to run the country nor having a succession out of the army that is both garunteeed and universally accepted. You will simply have to muddle through such crisis as every state in real history has done (which I don't really understand, such times would be excellent settings for plot evolution).