Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Larry Essick]

I have asked this from the DBM list and found no one knowledgeable. Perhaps
someone here knows:

What evidence exists for providing Catalan Almugavars with shields? The
writings of Ramon Muntaner (who was a member of the Catalan Company) as well as
those of Bernat Desclot (who predates Muntaner and also wrote about the
almugavars) both indicate that they were shieldless. Lawrence Mott, who has
written about them in his works on the War of the Sicilian Vespers, also implies
that they were shieldless.

Are there any texts from Byzantine or German or Italian or Spanish sources that
would lead us to believe that almugavars used shields?

Thanks in advance,

Larry

[Mark Stone]

--- On August 17 Larry Essick said: ---

> What evidence exists for providing Catalan Almugavars with shields? The
> writings of Ramon Muntaner (who was a member of the Catalan Company) as well
as
> those of Bernat Desclot (who predates Muntaner and also wrote about the
> almugavars) both indicate that they were shieldless.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: in my (non-FHE) opinion, this is
_such_ a wrong way to approach the question.

Unlike WRG 7th, Warrior is _not_ an attempt to create battlefield simulations by
giving pre-eminence to historically documented equipment and training. Rather,
Warrior applies a functional model: troop types should achieve reasonable
performance against historical opponents by getting them to function within the
army as they did historically. If a combination of weapons, armor, training, and
list rules will get said troop types that functional performance, then the army
list should give players the option of constructing the troop type that way.

Almughuvars fought Ottoman Turks _frequently_. They got shot at frequently, and
by some of the Mediterranean's best archers. They didn't seem to suffer
particularly from getting shot at. Why not? I have no idea. But I do know that
giving half of them shields does a much better job of matching their historical
function and performance than _not_ giving them shields. So I'm totally fine
with the way they are rendered on the army lists. Any historical evidence
supporting the use of shields by Almughuvars, however scant, is a bonus as far
as I'm concerned, but certainly not a requirement.

In short I applaud FHE for the approach they've taken in list writing, and hope
this trend will continue.


-Mark Stone

[Greg Regets]

Good Evening Larry ...

This is actually a rather old issue on this board, and one we beat to
death. I know, I was doing lots of the beating. ;-)

It seems to me that in a weapons v. armor game, this sort of thing is
going to come up occasionally, where the stats don't give the desired
performance. This was the fix they came up with, and pretty much
gives a historical feel to the troops.

Besides, "Pachyderm Pacifiers", get much love, in my book!

g


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> --- On August 17 Larry Essick said: ---
>
> > What evidence exists for providing Catalan Almugavars with
shields? The
> > writings of Ramon Muntaner (who was a member of the Catalan
Company) as well
> as
> > those of Bernat Desclot (who predates Muntaner and also wrote
about the
> > almugavars) both indicate that they were shieldless.
>
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again: in my (non-FHE)
opinion, this is
> _such_ a wrong way to approach the question.
>
> Unlike WRG 7th, Warrior is _not_ an attempt to create battlefield
simulations by
> giving pre-eminence to historically documented equipment and
training. Rather,
> Warrior applies a functional model: troop types should achieve
reasonable
> performance against historical opponents by getting them to
function within the
> army as they did historically. If a combination of weapons, armor,
training, and
> list rules will get said troop types that functional performance,
then the army
> list should give players the option of constructing the troop type
that way.
>
> Almughuvars fought Ottoman Turks _frequently_. They got shot at
frequently, and
> by some of the Mediterranean's best archers. They didn't seem to
suffer
> particularly from getting shot at. Why not? I have no idea. But I
do know that
> giving half of them shields does a much better job of matching
their historical
> function and performance than _not_ giving them shields. So I'm
totally fine
> with the way they are rendered on the army lists. Any historical
evidence
> supporting the use of shields by Almughuvars, however scant, is a
bonus as far
> as I'm concerned, but certainly not a requirement.
>
> In short I applaud FHE for the approach they've taken in list
writing, and hope
> this trend will continue.
>
>
> -Mark Stone

[Larry Essick]

Greg and Mark,

I understand that FHE reached a compromise in their list construction
in order to create a unit that would come near to its historical
performance. That is not what I am after.

To begin with, Muntaner is clear that almugavars only fought the
enemy foot soldiers. He never mentions them being in danger because
of their opponent's shooting. In fact, he comments that the shooting
of the Catalan Company's own crossbowmen was superior to that of the
Genoese and implies that enemy shooters were neutralized by the
efficiency of the Company's own archers.

To continue, while Warrior is certainly not 7th neither is it DBM.
Weapons and armor are critical parts of the game and fudging them in
order to produce a desired effect should be done with list rules
rather than by giving added, historically spurious, equipment.

A list rule stating that almugavars count shielded and justified by
reference to battlefield performance and inability of the rules to
simulate this otherwise would be more honest and more accurate.

IMO, we have an obligation to represent troops accurately in order to
avoid giving people the wrong impression about our ability to
understand history.

But, mostly, I am interested in knowing if there is a historical
basis for providing shields -- my gut reaction from what you two have
said is that this answer is no.

Larry

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 8/18/2004 01:48:04 Central Daylight Time,
larryessick@... writes:

I understand that FHE reached a compromise in their list construction
in order to create a unit that would come near to its historical
performance. That is not what I am after.



It was not only a *compromise*, actually. However, we at FHE have been over
this already more than ad naseum and choose not to go over it again. Please
feel free to discuss here with others the historical record, but for our
position, the archive will have to serve.

J


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

[Todd Schneider]

Larry,

From my understanding of an units construction, you
pay for the cost of the shield when figuring out how
much to pay for each element. Removing that cost by
making Moogs 'Shieldless but Shielded' due to a list
rule would make them cheaper, and I am not sure anyone
wants that. There was some concern voiced awhile back
that even in their current form they are to cheap.

The compromise in giving almost all Moogs a line that
says Shields "0-1/2" is a good balance IMO.

Having faced Moogs on a weekly basis the past year and
a half, I wouldn't mind if they were a bit more
expensive myself :-)


--- Larry Essick <larryessick@...> wrote:


---------------------------------
Greg and Mark,

I understand that FHE reached a compromise in their
list construction
in order to create a unit that would come near to its
historical
performance. That is not what I am after.

To begin with, Muntaner is clear that almugavars only
fought the
enemy foot soldiers. He never mentions them being in
danger because
of their opponent's shooting. In fact, he comments
that the shooting
of the Catalan Company's own crossbowmen was superior
to that of the
Genoese and implies that enemy shooters were
neutralized by the
efficiency of the Company's own archers.

To continue, while Warrior is certainly not 7th
neither is it DBM.
Weapons and armor are critical parts of the game and
fudging them in
order to produce a desired effect should be done with
list rules
rather than by giving added, historically spurious,
equipment.

A list rule stating that almugavars count shielded and
justified by
reference to battlefield performance and inability of
the rules to
simulate this otherwise would be more honest and more
accurate.

IMO, we have an obligation to represent troops
accurately in order to
avoid giving people the wrong impression about our
ability to
understand history.

But, mostly, I am interested in knowing if there is a
historical
basis for providing shields -- my gut reaction from
what you two have
said is that this answer is no.

Larry


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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.

[Larry Essick]

> From my understanding of an units construction, you
> pay for the cost of the shield when figuring out how
> much to pay for each element. Removing that cost by
> making Moogs 'Shieldless but Shielded' due to a list
> rule would make them cheaper, and I am not sure anyone
> wants that. There was some concern voiced awhile back
> that even in their current form they are to cheap.
>
> The compromise in giving almost all Moogs a line that
> says Shields "0-1/2" is a good balance IMO.
>
> Having faced Moogs on a weekly basis the past year and
> a half, I wouldn't mind if they were a bit more
> expensive myself :-)

Todd,

My thinking is that almugavars be costed as shielded and that list rules count
them as shielded.

This is an example of how Warrior is really just 7th. The cost of the element
is the sum of the per figure cost, which for shieldless LMI is 4 points for Irr
B double armed almugavars (12 points per element). Shielding them makes the
cost go up by 1 point per figure (+3 points per element).

I would cost almugavars at 5 points per figure (15 points per element) and note
in the special rules that while historically shieldless they are costed and
count as shielded because this better reflects their historical efficiency.

Larry

[John Murphy]

Mark, you are much more intelligent than I, but, sorry, I am
compelled to cry "baloney and hogwash" on this one!

When complaints are made about "proxying" figures and discussions
held about being able to say that one's figures match their
equipment - I would wholeheartedly say the rules are very much about
equipment and not effects.

Now, where I would agree with you (and wholeheartedly) is to the
extent we are not discussing how many pigeons a windlass crossbow
can hit in one minute at 225 yards on a rainy day, when fired by a
man with two and a half weeks training on an empty stomach into a
six and one half mile an hour wind.

But basic presence or absence of equipment, or degrees of armor
(unlike loose/close order) I think are actually explicitly stated in
the rules to be just that (read the applicable sections), and imo
the rules are written, even intended (?), very much that way.
Warrior is not such an incredibly revolutionary departure from TOG
as all that.

Now, regarding almughavars in particular, it is much more likely in
my opinion, worthless as it is, that the effect of Ottoman Turk
archery is vastly over-rated in Warrior as is probably most
shooting. Which likely sets its apart from exactly zero other rule
sets. But like I said that is my worthless opinion.

However I think all this moog stuff is pretty much something that
has already been run into the ground over the years and one could go
back and look in the archives at some discussion from Holder if one
really wanted an answer.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> --- On August 17 Larry Essick said: ---
>
> > What evidence exists for providing Catalan Almugavars with
shields? The
> > writings of Ramon Muntaner (who was a member of the Catalan
Company) as well
> as
> > those of Bernat Desclot (who predates Muntaner and also wrote
about the
> > almugavars) both indicate that they were shieldless.
>
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again: in my (non-FHE)
opinion, this is
> _such_ a wrong way to approach the question.
>
> Unlike WRG 7th, Warrior is _not_ an attempt to create battlefield
simulations by
> giving pre-eminence to historically documented equipment and
training. Rather,
> Warrior applies a functional model: troop types should achieve
reasonable
> performance against historical opponents by getting them to
function within the
> army as they did historically. If a combination of weapons, armor,
training, and
> list rules will get said troop types that functional performance,
then the army
> list should give players the option of constructing the troop type
that way.
>
> Almughuvars fought Ottoman Turks _frequently_. They got shot at
frequently, and
> by some of the Mediterranean's best archers. They didn't seem to
suffer
> particularly from getting shot at. Why not? I have no idea. But I
do know that
> giving half of them shields does a much better job of matching
their historical
> function and performance than _not_ giving them shields. So I'm
totally fine
> with the way they are rendered on the army lists. Any historical
evidence
> supporting the use of shields by Almughuvars, however scant, is a
bonus as far
> as I'm concerned, but certainly not a requirement.
>
> In short I applaud FHE for the approach they've taken in list
writing, and hope
> this trend will continue.
>
>
> -Mark Stone

[Kelly Wilkinson]

I tend to agree with Mark on this point. My opinion has changed on this question
as I've read several different articles lauding the ability of Almughavars in
combat. My only real problem with the present incarnation of "moogs" is that I
feel they should be better verses knights and less powerful against formed
infantry. Giving them the ability to beat Swiss pikemen (and formed infantry of
their ilk on an even die throw) seems incredulous at best. But this is the way
it currently is and this is how I will play them.

kelly

Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:
--- On August 17 Larry Essick said: ---

> What evidence exists for providing Catalan Almugavars with shields? The
> writings of Ramon Muntaner (who was a member of the Catalan Company) as well
as
> those of Bernat Desclot (who predates Muntaner and also wrote about the
> almugavars) both indicate that they were shieldless.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: in my (non-FHE) opinion, this is
_such_ a wrong way to approach the question.

Unlike WRG 7th, Warrior is _not_ an attempt to create battlefield simulations by
giving pre-eminence to historically documented equipment and training. Rather,
Warrior applies a functional model: troop types should achieve reasonable
performance against historical opponents by getting them to function within the
army as they did historically. If a combination of weapons, armor, training, and
list rules will get said troop types that functional performance, then the army
list should give players the option of constructing the troop type that way.

Almughuvars fought Ottoman Turks _frequently_. They got shot at frequently, and
by some of the Mediterranean's best archers. They didn't seem to suffer
particularly from getting shot at. Why not? I have no idea. But I do know that
giving half of them shields does a much better job of matching their historical
function and performance than _not_ giving them shields. So I'm totally fine
with the way they are rendered on the army lists. Any historical evidence
supporting the use of shields by Almughuvars, however scant, is a bonus as far
as I'm concerned, but certainly not a requirement.

In short I applaud FHE for the approach they've taken in list writing, and hope
this trend will continue.


-Mark Stone


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

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