Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Phil Gardocki]

One advantage. Ally Generals count as a CIC to the unit they are attached,
they protect the unit for a -1 on the melee dice after the first round of
combat.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Ed Forbes]

Are there advantages to having an ally general over a sub-general?

Several of the lists let you "upgrade" a sub-general to ally general. I
can think of no rational reason why you would. They cost more and they
can go unreliable.

Ed

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Ed,

IMHO the chance for an ally general to go over to the enemy seems to be a
bit silly if that ally was stalwart in the historical context. Considering the
fact that we are trying to play a historical game, it would seem likely that
lists could be written with the consideration as to reliablitiy in a historical
context. For example, was Antiochus of Commagene likely to remain loyal to the
Romans at the siege of Jerusalem or would he have gone over to the rebellious
Israelites? Having this in mind, it seems that would leave less to chance and
more to history. I'm fully confident in the research skills and judgement of FHE
in this area. If they chose to research this area, it certainly would add a bit
more flavor to an already great game.
Additionally, it seems to me that rashness, cautiousness, and boldness
could also be researched and this would take a bit more chance out of the game
and add even more history! Whatever is chosen, I will continue to play and enjoy
this excellent pass time.

kelly wilkinson
Ed C Forbes <eforbes100@...> wrote:
Are there advantages to having an ally general over a sub-general?

Several of the lists let you "upgrade" a sub-general to ally general. I
can think of no rational reason why you would. They cost more and they
can go unreliable.

Ed

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Chris Bump]

Although I like you line of thought in this particular regard I disagree with
you. In a historical matchup or scenario you are free to set the state of
each general as you see fit-based on your's or another's research. However, in
the sense of a simple competition game every army list has not only the
potential but the likelihood to produce an army on the table that bears only the
slightest resemblance to an actual historically fielded force. Most of the
games
played, although based in history are in fact fantasy or what-if's.
Furthermore how do you place timelines on individual generals capability or
reliability. They change over time. Simply because we know when Titus Labenius
actually took up arms against his former captain JC, doesn't mean we know when
he
actually started to sway in his loyalty. Waaaay too much research to ask for
from so many lists being produced by FHE. So the need for an un-reliable
general
needs to stay in place just as is. There should be some risk (albeit small)
for hiring an ally general to counter balance the benfits.
IMHO,
Chris

In a message dated 2/21/2004 10:58:20 AM Central Standard Time,
jwilkinson62@... writes:
Ed,

IMHO the chance for an ally general to go over to the enemy seems to be
a bit silly if that ally was stalwart in the historical context. Considering
the fact that we are trying to play a historical game, it would seem likely
that lists could be written with the consideration as to reliablitiy in a
historical context. For example, was Antiochus of Commagene likely to remain
loyal to
the Romans at the siege of Jerusalem or would he have gone over to the
rebellious Israelites? Having this in mind, it seems that would leave less to
chance and more to history. I'm fully confident in the research skills and
judgement of FHE in this area. If they chose to research this area, it certainly
would
add a bit more flavor to an already great game.
Additionally, it seems to me that rashness, cautiousness, and boldness
could also be researched and this would take a bit more chance out of the game
and add even more history! Whatever is chosen, I will continue to play and
enjoy this excellent pass time.

kelly wilkinson


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Chris Bump]

Kelly,

Settle down and take a deep breath. I don't know what you read but your
response has little to do with what I wrote.

I make no mention of different time periods fighting each other. I spoke of
the ability to create an army from the lists that can minimally resemble any
force that actually took the field. So even if we set up historical opponents
in the appropriate time frame on appropriately historical terrain given the
two opponent's conflict, it is still possible, even likely that the armies
facing each other will only RESEMBLE any army that actually took the field
against
that historical opponent. Ergo, it is a "what if" and therefore not
historical and thus fantasy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Certainly, it would not be too difficult to imagine an Alexandrian army with
a cautious left wing sub general (Parmenian?) and several bold commanders
among his Companions or Phalanx units. Or for that matter, do the Romans always
have to take a Rash and a Cautious general in their Punic wars lists or was this
just based on Cannae and was merely one instance. . .
Certainly there will be lists that cannot be researched as there may be not
information. My answer to this is to continue using the random die roll for
these.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

What is your point with this line of thought? You are the proponent of FHE
doing the additional research. And if they were to follow your thought process
they would still have to do the research on each army in order to determine
that in fact in some cases there was not sufficient data available to provide
the research on a given army. Still time and rescources spent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Or perhaps there could be a propensity based on the historical evidence that
a subgeneral or Ally in a given army could go unreliable, rash, cautious, or
bold. But at least we could say that the percentages are based on historical
research rather than mere chance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is already being done in some lists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I would submit that most Ally generals would be more committed to a cause
than many of the heirs of potentates who may see a double cross of their parent
on a battlefield as a way to the purple.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Based on what? Ally General also falls into the category of leader of a band
of mercenaries.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It comes down to this, I love Warrior. I also want to play a game where
I can tell my gaming peers that is the "MOST HISTORICAL" as we can make a game
in as many aspects as possible. Yes, it may be too much to ask of the Four
Horsemen. But I'd venture a guess that their researchers combined with the
talents of their group could tackle this with an alacrity that none to date have
wittnessed in the Historical Ancients wargaming community!
kelly wilkinson

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Again, I like your train of thought. But in order to make the claims you
would like to make, you would need to balance historical accuracy with
playability. If we were to make this the most historical game ever then we
would need
considerably more weapons and armor classes. We would need more morale grades
and a greater limitation on maneuver from the irregular foot armies. We would
need to make so many whole sale changes as to make the game as we all know it
unrecognizable. It is already the most historically accurate game being
played on a wide scale.
Chris

kelly wilkinson

In a message dated 2/23/2004 12:54:19 PM Central Standard Time,
jwilkinson62@... writes:
Chris,

Considering that you feel that many of our games are fantasy as armies
from different periods are fighting and that loyalties might change give these
types of battles, I submit that by the same reasoning we could assume that an
army should be able to change it's weaponry because it's fighting a "fantasy"
battle against an army out of it's time period (based on your reasoning). This
is a system based on historical foundations as much as possible. If FHE chose
to research ally or subgeneral character(and I'm not saying they would or
must), it would set them even further above the other rulesets than they already
are. Presently, I feel that the research done is terrific (ofcourse there are
always areas that I have disagreed on, but those are very minor and don't
impact the overall game)! Certainly, it would not be too difficult to imagine an
Alexandrian army with a cautious left wing sub general (Parmenian?) and several
bold commanders among his Companions or Phalanx units. Or for
that matter, do the Romans always have to take a Rash and a Cautious general
in their Punic wars lists or was this just based on Cannae and was merely one
instance. . . Certainly there will be lists that cannot be researched as there
may be not information. My answer to this is to continue using the random die
roll for these. Or perhaps there could be a propensity based on the
historical evidence that a subgeneral or Ally in a given army could go
unreliable,
rash, cautious, or bold. But at least we could say that the percentages are
based
on historical research rather than mere chance. I would submit that most Ally
generals would be more committed to a cause than many of the heirs of
potentates who may see a double cross of their parent on a battlefield as a way
to the
purple.
It comes down to this, I love Warrior. I also want to play a game where
I can tell my gaming peers that is the "MOST HISTORICAL" as we can make a game
in as many aspects as possible. Yes, it may be too much to ask of the Four
Horsemen. But I'd venture a guess that their researchers combined with the
talents of their group could tackle this with an alacrity that none to date have
wittnessed in the Historical Ancients wargaming community!

kelly wilkinson


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Chris,

Considering that you feel that many of our games are fantasy as armies from
different periods are fighting and that loyalties might change give these types
of battles, I submit that by the same reasoning we could assume that an army
should be able to change it's weaponry because it's fighting a "fantasy" battle
against an army out of it's time period (based on your reasoning). This is a
system based on historical foundations as much as possible. If FHE chose to
research ally or subgeneral character(and I'm not saying they would or must), it
would set them even further above the other rulesets than they already are.
Presently, I feel that the research done is terrific (ofcourse there are always
areas that I have disagreed on, but those are very minor and don't impact the
overall game)! Certainly, it would not be too difficult to imagine an
Alexandrian army with a cautious left wing sub general (Parmenian?) and several
bold commanders among his Companions or Phalanx units. Or for
that matter, do the Romans always have to take a Rash and a Cautious general in
their Punic wars lists or was this just based on Cannae and was merely one
instance. . . Certainly there will be lists that cannot be researched as there
may be not information. My answer to this is to continue using the random die
roll for these. Or perhaps there could be a propensity based on the historical
evidence that a subgeneral or Ally in a given army could go unreliable, rash,
cautious, or bold. But at least we could say that the percentages are based on
historical research rather than mere chance. I would submit that most Ally
generals would be more committed to a cause than many of the heirs of potentates
who may see a double cross of their parent on a battlefield as a way to the
purple.
It comes down to this, I love Warrior. I also want to play a game where I
can tell my gaming peers that is the "MOST HISTORICAL" as we can make a game in
as many aspects as possible. Yes, it may be too much to ask of the Four
Horsemen. But I'd venture a guess that their researchers combined with the
talents of their group could tackle this with an alacrity that none to date have
wittnessed in the Historical Ancients wargaming community!

kelly wilkinson


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 2/23/04 11:14:16 PM GMT Standard Time, cncbump@...
writes:

I think kelly has a point but only when actually doing a refight of a battle
that there is abundant information about. 99%+ battles are no such thing, so
it would be ok by the organisers of such refights to say certain generals are
rash, or unreliable etc if that is home they interpret them.

I know my seleucid generals are hardly ever rash on paper, but you wouldnt
believe how many i have lost in suicide charges.

> Kelly,
>
> Settle down and take a deep breath. I don't know what you read but your
> response has little to do with what I wrote.
>
> I make no mention of different time periods fighting each other. I spoke of
>
> the ability to create an army from the lists that can minimally resemble any
>
> force that actually took the field. So even if we set up historical
> opponents
> in the appropriate time frame on appropriately historical terrain given the
> two opponent's conflict, it is still possible, even likely that the armies
> facing each other will only RESEMBLE any army that actually took the field
> against
> that historical opponent. Ergo, it is a "what if" and therefore not
> historical and thus fantasy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Certainly, it would not be too difficult to imagine an Alexandrian army with
>
> a cautious left wing sub general (Parmenian?) and several bold commanders
> among his Companions or Phalanx units. Or for that matter, do the Romans
> always
> have to take a Rash and a Cautious general in their Punic wars lists or was
> this
> just based on Cannae and was merely one instance. . .
> Certainly there will be lists that cannot be researched as there may be not
> information. My answer to this is to continue using the random die roll for
> these.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> What is your point with this line of thought? You are the proponent of FHE
> doing the additional research. And if they were to follow your thought
> process
> they would still have to do the research on each army in order to determine
> that in fact in some cases there was not sufficient data available to
> provide
> the research on a given army. Still time and rescources spent.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Or perhaps there could be a propensity based on the historical evidence that
>
> a subgeneral or Ally in a given army could go unreliable, rash, cautious, or
>
> bold. But at least we could say that the percentages are based on historical
>
> research rather than mere chance.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> This is already being done in some lists.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> I would submit that most Ally generals would be more committed to a cause
> than many of the heirs of potentates who may see a double cross of their
> parent
> on a battlefield as a way to the purple.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Based on what? Ally General also falls into the category of leader of a
> band
> of mercenaries.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> It comes down to this, I love Warrior. I also want to play a game where
> I can tell my gaming peers that is the "MOST HISTORICAL" as we can make a
> game
> in as many aspects as possible. Yes, it may be too much to ask of the Four
> Horsemen. But I'd venture a guess that their researchers combined with the
> talents of their group could tackle this with an alacrity that none to date
> have
> wittnessed in the Historical Ancients wargaming community!
> kelly wilkinson
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Again, I like your train of thought. But in order to make the claims you
> would like to make, you would need to balance historical accuracy with
> playability. If we were to make this the most historical game ever then we
> would need
> considerably more weapons and armor classes. We would need more morale
> grades
> and a greater limitation on maneuver from the irregular foot armies. We
> would
> need to make so many whole sale changes as to make the game as we all know
> it
> unrecognizable. It is already the most historically accurate game being
> played on a wide scale.
> Chris
>
> kelly wilkinson
>
> In a message dated 2/23/2004 12:54:19 PM Central Standard Time,
> jwilkinson62@... writes:
> Chris,
>
> Considering that you feel that many of our games are fantasy as armies
> from different periods are fighting and that loyalties might change give
> these
> types of battles, I submit that by the same reasoning we could assume that
> an
> army should be able to change it's weaponry because it's fighting a
> "fantasy"
> battle against an army out of it's time period (based on your reasoning).
> This
> is a system based on historical foundations as much as possible. If FHE
> chose
> to research ally or subgeneral character(and I'm not saying they would or
> must), it would set them even further above the other rulesets than they
> already
> are. Presently, I feel that the research done is terrific (ofcourse there
> are
> always areas that I have disagreed on, but those are very minor and don't
> impact the overall game)! Certainly, it would not be too difficult to
> imagine an
> Alexandrian army with a cautious left wing sub general (Parmenian?) and
> several
> bold commanders among his Companions or Phalanx units. Or for
> that matter, do the Romans always have to take a Rash and a Cautious general
>
> in their Punic wars lists or was this just based on Cannae and was merely
> one
> instance. . . Certainly there will be lists that cannot be researched as
> there
> may be not information. My answer to this is to continue using the random
> die
> roll for these. Or perhaps there could be a propensity based on the
> historical evidence that a subgeneral or Ally in a given army could go
> unreliable,
> rash, cautious, or bold. But at least we could say that the percentages are
> based
> on historical research rather than mere chance. I would submit that most
> Ally
> generals would be more committed to a cause than many of the heirs of
> potentates who may see a double cross of their parent on a battlefield as a
> way to the
> purple.
> It comes down to this, I love Warrior. I also want to play a game where
> I can tell my gaming peers that is the "MOST HISTORICAL" as we can make a
> game
> in as many aspects as possible. Yes, it may be too much to ask of the Four
> Horsemen. But I'd venture a guess that their researchers combined with the
> talents of their group could tackle this with an alacrity that none to date
> have
> wittnessed in the Historical Ancients wargaming community!
>
> kelly wilkinson
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Chris,
Don't bag on mercenaries! Often times they were a leader's most reliable
troops!

kelly


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 2/24/2004 2:45:22 AM Central Standard Time,
jwilkinson62@... writes:
Chris,
Don't bag on mercenaries! Often times they were a leader's most reliable
troops!
And they still can be. But Merc's also proved to be unreliable. And with
the rules as they exist, they can be as well.
Chris


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Chris,
I would remind you that mercenary troops were among the most reliable
troops of the ancient world. Not only was it in their interest to be loyal to
their employers to get paid, but if they displayed any disloyalty whatsoever,
how could they find work if their reputation was that of disloyalty? I would
further remind you that the Byzantine Emperors relied on mercenaries for
centuries as the imperial guard, you've heard of the Varangian Guard? These men
gave their last full measure dying to a man defending the emperor at Manzikert.
Additionally, Syracusan regimes of whatever complexion depended heavily on
mercenaries for an effective field army against Carthage, as the citizen troops
were inexperienced and unreliable, even when fighting in a cause they supported:
Dion, fighting the tyrant Dionysios II in 357 BC, was nearly beaten when his
citizen troops panicked in the face of a surprise attack, and was only saved by
his more reliable mecrenaries.
I submit that the real problem with mercenaries is that many of their
employers refused to pay them, thus encouraging their ire. Chris, as one of
America's finest ( being a West Point grad like Jon), you certainly understand
that one of the most sacred things that a commander doesn't mess with is a
soldier's pay! Food I believe may be the other! One example of mercenaries
being hosed by their employer ocurred in 317 when Agathokles massacred 2,000
Ligurian and Etruscan mercenaries whom he could not afford to pay. Sadly, this
was a common problem; and often mercenaries were promised land in return for
their services.
And then there's the story of Antigonas Gonatas. . . If I'm not mistaken,
Our own Scott Holder mentioned this to be one of his favorite personages of the
age. If your not familiar with the story, Macedon was depopulated and devastated
by the Galation invasion, Gonatas crushed the Galations and seized the throne.
Relizing that his people were not loyal, Gonatas supplemented his army of Greek
mercenaries by hiring large numbers of Celts, and even a whole tribe! By 273 BC
he was forced to use Macedonian troops to his detriment as they deserted to
Pyrrhos while his Galation mercenaries fought and died to the last man. Pyrros
briefly retook Macedon, but Gonatas' mercenaries played a major part in the
fighting that led to Pyrrhos's death.
If you would like, I could innumerate many more instances where mercenaries
were by far more reliable than "home troops." Basically, it comes down to that
fact that sellswords had a reputation to maintain. If they couldn't maintain a
reputation of loyalty to their employers, they could not continue to make money
through future employment. Further, I submit that many of these were
professionals at their trade and served a vital role as RELIABLE troops for
their employers who could not rely on their own countrymen in times of crisis. I
await your honorable rebuttal. . . :)

Kelly Wilkinson


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 2/25/2004 7:41:25 AM Central Standard Time,
jwilkinson62@... writes:
Chris,
I would remind you that mercenary troops were among the most reliable
troops of the ancient world. Not only was it in their interest to be loyal to
their employers to get paid, but if they displayed any disloyalty whatsoever,
how could they find work if their reputation was that of disloyalty? I would
further remind you that the Byzantine Emperors relied on mercenaries for
centuries as the imperial guard, you've heard of the Varangian Guard? These men
gave
their last full measure dying to a man defending the emperor at Manzikert.
Additionally, Syracusan regimes of whatever complexion depended heavily on
mercenaries for an effective field army against Carthage, as the citizen troops
were
inexperienced and unreliable, even when fighting in a cause they supported:
Dion, fighting the tyrant Dionysios II in 357 BC, was nearly beaten when his
citizen troops panicked in the face of a surprise attack, and was only saved by
his more reliable mecrenaries.
I submit that the real problem with mercenaries is that many of their
employers refused to pay them, thus encouraging their ire. Chris, as one of
America's finest ( being a West Point grad like Jon), you certainly understand
that one of the most sacred things that a commander doesn't mess with is a
soldier's pay! Food I believe may be the other! One example of mercenaries
being
hosed by their employer ocurred in 317 when Agathokles massacred 2,000
Ligurian and Etruscan mercenaries whom he could not afford to pay. Sadly, this
was a
common problem; and often mercenaries were promised land in return for their
services.
And then there's the story of Antigonas Gonatas. . . If I'm not
mistaken, Our own Scott Holder mentioned this to be one of his favorite
personages of
the age. If your not familiar with the story, Macedon was depopulated and
devastated by the Galation invasion, Gonatas crushed the Galations and seized
the
throne. Relizing that his people were not loyal, Gonatas supplemented his army
of Greek mercenaries by hiring large numbers of Celts, and even a whole
tribe! By 273 BC he was forced to use Macedonian troops to his detriment as they
deserted to Pyrrhos while his Galation mercenaries fought and died to the last
man. Pyrros briefly retook Macedon, but Gonatas' mercenaries played a major
part in the fighting that led to Pyrrhos's death.
If you would like, I could innumerate many more instances where
mercenaries were by far more reliable than "home troops." Basically, it comes
down to
that fact that sellswords had a reputation to maintain. If they couldn't
maintain a reputation of loyalty to their employers, they could not continue to
make money through future employment. Further, I submit that many of these were
professionals at their trade and served a vital role as RELIABLE troops for
their employers who could not rely on their own countrymen in times of crisis. I
await your honorable rebuttal. . . :)

Kelly Wilkinson
I am not going to play this silly game of pontificating to draw attention to
my knowledge of history. First, no where did I make the statement that ALL or
even MOST Mercenaries were unreliable. Just that they were demonstrated to
be so. I am not going to go into all the detail of allies or Merc's who split
the scene at the first sign of trouble, Arabs at Carrhae come immediately to
mind, you mention others who were not paid. Thanks for supporting my case.
And the death of the Varangians at Manzikert was as much a case of an army who
found themselves in a desperate situation based on poor tactical control and
were thus fighting for their own survival as it was loyalty. There is no proof
that they demonstrated a loyalty to the emperor akin to the Imperial Guard of
Napoleon dying to the last for his survival. Desperation was a far more
likely motivation for their actions that day. Further you suffer the mistake of
many students of history, that of applying today's sensibilities and principles
to ancients. There is no evidence that the mercenaries were thinking of
future business when making decisions based on the captain's tactical assessment
of the situation on the day of battle. Survival tends to outweigh any future
business deals. There is always someone else willing to pay for warriors and
survival was in all likelihood held in higher regard than the loyalty to the
last job.

It appears to me that this thread is winding down, which I am glad for. I
believe that You have, in your various concessions, made my point for me that
the current system for determining loyalty of ally generals works fine as it is.
I will acknowledge your deep knowledge and appreciation for ancient military
history.
Chris


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/25/2004 17:35:29 Central Standard Time, cncbump@...
writes:
the current system for determining loyalty of ally generals works fine as it
is.
Indeed we think so, Chris. No worries there. ;)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 2/26/04 7:38:24 AM GMT Standard Time,
jwilkinson62@... writes:

>
> cncbump@... wrote:
> I am not going to play this silly game of pontificating to draw attention to
>
> my knowledge of history. First, no where did I make the statement that ALL
> or
> even MOST Mercenaries were unreliable. Just that they were demonstrated to
> be so.
>
> ***Kelly*** Silly game of pontification? I give you historical evidence to
> prove my point and you deliver nothing to prove your point. Where in this
> scathing rebuttal do you demonstrate that mercenaries are any less loyal than
> home troops? I'll answer that, No Where do you back up your claim.
>
>
>
> I am not going to go into all the detail of allies or Merc's who split
> the scene at the first sign of trouble, Arabs at Carrhae come immediately to
>
> mind,
>
> ***Kelly***
>
> Since you merely assert and don't back up your claims with evidence, I
> assert that these arabs were unwilling conscripts perhaps from a client
kingdom
> pressed into service. If they were Foederate, allies, or mercenaries, the
> evidence I have does not conclusively explain their association with the
Romans at
> Carhae. My limited source merely describes them as Arab Cavalry. Caesar's
> Germans Cavalry come to mind when I think of reliable and steady mercs
> throughout his Gallic campaign, not to mention his Balleric slingers among
many
> others!
>
>
>
> you mention others who were not paid. Thanks for supporting my case.
>
> ***Kelly*** Okay I'll bite, how does this prove anything you have thus far
> asserted? I merely mentioned this to demonstrate that often their employers
> were the bad guys and often double-crossed the mercs rather than the other way
> around.
>
>
> And the death of the Varangians at Manzikert was as much a case of an army
> who
> found themselves in a desperate situation based on poor tactical control and
>
> were thus fighting for their own survival as it was loyalty. There is no
> proof
> that they demonstrated a loyalty to the emperor akin to the Imperial Guard
> of
> Napoleon dying to the last for his survival. Desperation was a far more
> likely motivation for their actions that day.
>
> ***Kelly*** Actually Chris, it was the Middle Guard that Broke and Ran in
> the face of withering fire from the Brits. And yes Napoleon's Old Guard died
to
> allow their commander to escape. But it was still the breaking of the Middle
> Guard that was the straw that broke the camel's back at Waterloo. So I must
> assume you did not mean the Imperial Guard as a whole. In this case,
> Desperation also played a very large factor, as there were no other formed
units to
> oppose the slaughter that was fast approaching the broken French army and
> retreat was blocked by the rest of the retreating army. I suppose that your
point
> would have had more impact had you known that little part about the Middle
> Guard eh?
>
>
>
> Further you suffer the mistake of
> many students of history, that of applying today's sensibilities and
> principles
> to ancients. There is no evidence that the mercenaries were thinking of
> future business when making decisions based on the captain's tactical
> assessment
> of the situation on the day of battle. Survival tends to outweigh any
> future
> business deals. There is always someone else willing to pay for warriors
> and
> survival was in all likelihood held in higher regard than the loyalty to the
>
> last job.
>
> ***Kelly***That's great, how about supporting your argument with some
> evidence? Feel free to pontificate as evidence along with logic is the only
way
> historians can have proof. You have the logic portion, all you lack is the
> evidence to support your assertion.
>
> It appears to me that this thread is winding down, which I am glad for. I
> believe that You have, in your various concessions, made my point for me
> that
> the current system for determining loyalty of ally generals works fine as it
> is.
> I will acknowledge your deep knowledge and appreciation for ancient military
>
> history.
> Chris
>
> ***Kelly*** I'm not really sure how to take that last statement. Are you
> patronizing me? I certainly have made no concessions. I have proven my points
> with assertions backed with historical instances. Perhaps you should prove
your
> own points rather than rely upon saber dancing with assertions that have no
> historical evidence? In the final analysis, I am not pontificating, I merely
> am using historical evidence to prove my assertions. If you wish to prove me
> wrong please do so with something with a bit more substance.
>
> Respectfully yours,
> kelly
>
>
>
>

interesting argument - you have both made your points - i would call
it a draw - the rules work fine - if you are doing a reenactment then fine
tune the allies rule but for all intents and purposes i would stop this now.
i can also think of many instances of very loyal and very dodgy allies - who
knows what caused them to be either on the day - an upset stomach perhaps
- the rules do the job.

mark mallard


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kelly Wilkinson]

cncbump@... wrote:
I am not going to play this silly game of pontificating to draw attention to
my knowledge of history. First, no where did I make the statement that ALL or
even MOST Mercenaries were unreliable. Just that they were demonstrated to
be so.

***Kelly*** Silly game of pontification? I give you historical evidence to prove
my point and you deliver nothing to prove your point. Where in this scathing
rebuttal do you demonstrate that mercenaries are any less loyal than home
troops? I'll answer that, No Where do you back up your claim.



I am not going to go into all the detail of allies or Merc's who split
the scene at the first sign of trouble, Arabs at Carrhae come immediately to
mind,

***Kelly***

Since you merely assert and don't back up your claims with evidence, I assert
that these arabs were unwilling conscripts perhaps from a client kingdom pressed
into service. If they were Foederate, allies, or mercenaries, the evidence I
have does not conclusively explain their association with the Romans at Carhae.
My limited source merely describes them as Arab Cavalry. Caesar's Germans
Cavalry come to mind when I think of reliable and steady mercs throughout his
Gallic campaign, not to mention his Balleric slingers among many others!



you mention others who were not paid. Thanks for supporting my case.

***Kelly*** Okay I'll bite, how does this prove anything you have thus far
asserted? I merely mentioned this to demonstrate that often their employers were
the bad guys and often double-crossed the mercs rather than the other way
around.


And the death of the Varangians at Manzikert was as much a case of an army who
found themselves in a desperate situation based on poor tactical control and
were thus fighting for their own survival as it was loyalty. There is no proof
that they demonstrated a loyalty to the emperor akin to the Imperial Guard of
Napoleon dying to the last for his survival. Desperation was a far more
likely motivation for their actions that day.

***Kelly*** Actually Chris, it was the Middle Guard that Broke and Ran in the
face of withering fire from the Brits. And yes Napoleon's Old Guard died to
allow their commander to escape. But it was still the breaking of the Middle
Guard that was the straw that broke the camel's back at Waterloo. So I must
assume you did not mean the Imperial Guard as a whole. In this case, Desperation
also played a very large factor, as there were no other formed units to oppose
the slaughter that was fast approaching the broken French army and retreat was
blocked by the rest of the retreating army. I suppose that your point would have
had more impact had you known that little part about the Middle Guard eh?



Further you suffer the mistake of
many students of history, that of applying today's sensibilities and principles
to ancients. There is no evidence that the mercenaries were thinking of
future business when making decisions based on the captain's tactical assessment
of the situation on the day of battle. Survival tends to outweigh any future
business deals. There is always someone else willing to pay for warriors and
survival was in all likelihood held in higher regard than the loyalty to the
last job.

***Kelly***That's great, how about supporting your argument with some evidence?
Feel free to pontificate as evidence along with logic is the only way historians
can have proof. You have the logic portion, all you lack is the evidence to
support your assertion.

It appears to me that this thread is winding down, which I am glad for. I
believe that You have, in your various concessions, made my point for me that
the current system for determining loyalty of ally generals works fine as it is.
I will acknowledge your deep knowledge and appreciation for ancient military
history.
Chris

***Kelly*** I'm not really sure how to take that last statement. Are you
patronizing me? I certainly have made no concessions. I have proven my points
with assertions backed with historical instances. Perhaps you should prove your
own points rather than rely upon saber dancing with assertions that have no
historical evidence? In the final analysis, I am not pontificating, I merely am
using historical evidence to prove my assertions. If you wish to prove me wrong
please do so with something with a bit more substance.

Respectfully yours,
kelly



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
Click Here

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Mark,

I'm not bitterly opposed to the rule. I'm just suggesting that the tire on
the wheel could be improved to a steele belted version that is puncture
resistant. Will the present equipment work fine and get us where we want to go?
The answer is yes. To a certain extent, several of the lists available already
state that certain Crusader Ally generals are Rash, etc. . . I just think it
would be neat in a historical context, if the research is available, to
determine the character of ally and sub generals for all the lists we possible
can rather than for the few that have been done this way. Consider it extra
gloss rather than a call for a rule change. That is all.

kelly



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]