Let me know if there is a better community for this type of question. I am still learning my way around.

  • zitronen@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why do you assume, they had no such concern? There were seals to ensure authenticity and avoid man in the middle attacks. There were encoded messages, smoke, flags, light and sound signals. Trusted couriers, pigeons, etc …

  • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    They used messengers, forgery was prevented by use of wax seals or similar, interception is down to the luck and skill of your messengers. Dressing like a civilian helps avoid detection, but they could be executed as spies.

  • Delphia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nobody else has mentioned deliberate obfuscation techniques.

    For example, if you’re sending field commanders instructions in writing, you brief them in advance that if you use certain codewords, modify certain data. I.e if you use the word “glorious” to describe reinforcement troops, double the number. If you describe them as “experienced” halve the number.

    So if the letter does fall into enemy hands, the data will be wrong.

  • cynar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    In battle terms, messengers and flags were key. The messenger core often included the children of officers etc. This meant it wasn’t a random person delivering the orders, but a trusted person.

    Flags etc could also be used for simple transmission. It was often limited to predefined messages, but that was generally enough to send units around.

    These 2 methods were why knowing where the commander was in a battle was so important. A big, showy banner could make them an arrow magnet. It also let everyone know where orders were coming from, and where to send reports.

    The fog of war was ever present however. Messages could get lost, or misunderstood. The best commanders had highly competent underlings. A sub-commander sending in the reserves, without orders, could win or lose a battle.

    As for longer ranges. There were several ways. Chains of trust were the most common. Knights etc would travel regularly. They got to know each other and so could vouch for each other’s identity. This is part of where knightly honor comes from. You faked messages and both you and your family would suffer for it. The unique armour designs also helped with identification. It’s hard to fake a suit of armour quickly, and taking one by force was difficult.

    This also formalised into messenger cores. Various chains of trust were formed to identify imposters. Pomp and ceremony, along with expensive indicators made faking difficult, dangerous and expensive.

    Another option was message relay towers. The Romans used timed lights to send messages along walls. Simple messages could be sent long distances without much risk of corruption. Semaphore towers served a similar purpose, with the ability to send complex messages. They were expensive to build and operate however, so tended to be for critical lines of communication only.

    Combined with all this was a continuous arms race of message validation Vs forgeries, encryption Vs code breaking. Many cyphers were developed and broken. Things like signet rings were a classic. It’s easy to seal a message with one (pressed into hot wax), and relatively hard to fake. Your seal also lived on your finger, so very difficult to steal.

  • ghariksforge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Forgery and interception happened all the time. So did just pure confusion and chaos. Here is a lovely example from the legendary Battle of Karánsebes:

      • Caaaaarrrrlll@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Battle of Karánsebes

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Karánsebes

        Immediately, the hussars and infantry engaged in combat with one another. During the conflict, some Romanian infantry began shouting, “Turcii! Turcii!” (“Turks! Turks!”). The hussars fled the scene, thinking that the Ottoman army’s attack was imminent. Most of the infantry also ran away; the army comprised Austrians, Romanians, Serbs from the military frontier, Croats, and Italians from Lombardy, as well as other minorities, many of whom could not understand one another. While it is not clear which one of these groups did so, they gave the false warning without telling the others, who promptly fled. The situation was made worse when officers, in an attempt to restore order, shouted, “Halt! Halt!” which was misheard by soldiers with no knowledge of German as “Allah! Allah!”.[5][6]