Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

I was very please and a little dissapointed.

First I am pleased to see my beloved Normans still
retain plenty of IrrA kn-iggits. Was annoyed that MI
B are still part of the list, as from all accounts at
Hastings the bow were swarms of LI/LMI types. I'll
live with it, I guess, by not buying them. With all
the possible ally stuff, this army could be 100%
mounted with HC and LC. Realizing that I'm too rash
to actually run such as army, I still love it and will
do something rash at Derekcon 26 on June 22nd. I hope
some of you will be there, as we need a good
tournament. I'm talking to Derek about switching at
least one Derekcon a year to FW, so I'll report back
if successful.

Many of the lists are very very similar in this list
book. Avars have sheilds, so this army is looking
very strong. Maurikians and early Byz look fabulous,
and since the mounted can be HC in the Maurikian list
(skirmishable L/B/sh) I feel this list can be a real
contender. Finally!

I was concerned that I found no early Goths. I
understand that the dark ages begin in 476AD, but
Visigoths would have been expected as part of the Dark
ages as would African Vandals. I mean the people who
sacked Rome should account for part of the dark age.
I mean there are armies in this book--such as
Saxon--that predate the beginning of the dark age.

I like the viking 2hcw fighting 1.5 ranks, and this
will make Damour that much more dangerous Many
lists with vik allies will begin to appear at
tournaments, as these pups LHI 2HCW/sh are a nice
striker at 1.5 ranks.

While I was dissapointed to see the feudal Spanish LI
have lost their LTS, overall this list and Andalusian
are very workable. Good job.

Overall, some very playable armies here. Each has
possibilities and most are competitive. I applaud the
list ho for insuring a wider range of competitive
armies even though it comes at a price of generic list
parts. HC J/sh and LMI J/sh retain their "standard"
troop designation. More lists get L armed cav than
previously which may or may not be histical. the
research on each list is good and the historical notes
are entertaining.

Score: -A
I'd like to have seen the earlier barbarian armies
included. I know they will appear in some Rome and
her enemies list book, but I have a soft spot in my
heart for Vandals :)

boyd





=====
Wake up and smell the Assyrians

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.yahoo.com

[scott holder]

Many of the lists are very very similar in this list
book. Avars have sheilds, so this army is looking
very strong. Maurikians and early Byz look fabulous,
and since the mounted can be HC in the Maurikian list
(skirmishable L/B/sh) I feel this list can be a real
contender. Finally!

>By breaking down how army lists are produced and "packaged", there will
be a certain sameness since we're looking at similar military systems at
work within a given period and geographic location. Plus, once constant
complaint regarding every "other" set of army lists produced since 1980
was the discrepency between allied/ethnic contingents from one list to
another. I mean someone would ask "why do the Avars get shields in list
X but not in list Y". And while doing the research on these lists, I
discovered there was no good reason other than the list compiler didn't
keep track of allied/ethnic troops from list 1 to list 33. Bill Low is
the major "checker" of that type of thing in the Warrior lists. Phil B
got around this in the DBM lists by simply allowing players to pull
allied contingents from their parent list (with certain restrictions).
That pretty much sets up the same "looking" allied contingents from list
to list. Being very aware of the consistency issue, we made sure we
were.......consistent.

I was concerned that I found no early Goths. I
understand that the dark ages begin in 476AD, but
Visigoths would have been expected as part of the Dark
ages as would African Vandals. I mean the people who
sacked Rome should account for part of the dark age.
I mean there are armies in this book--such as
Saxon--that predate the beginning of the dark age.

>These were armies that fought primarily against the dieing Empire and
more than anything else, helped to "usher in" the Dark Ages and as such,
weren't really part of them. Hence, I put them in Imperial Warrior
since they "fit" there better as opponents for most of their historical
opponents.

I like the viking 2hcw fighting 1.5 ranks, and this
will make Damour that much more dangerous Many
lists with vik allies will begin to appear at
tournaments, as these pups LHI 2HCW/sh are a nice
striker at 1.5 ranks.

>Chris feels the list has been choked, gutted, and burnt at the stake
(I'm paraphrasing here). Most people dislike 2HCW because of it's lack
of staying power. If it evaporates, all those Irr C Bondi potentially
start hating life. But it's nice to see that what one person sees as
crap, another person sees as dangerous:) I've always liked that in
ancient/medieval gaming.

While I was dissapointed to see the feudal Spanish LI
have lost their LTS, overall this list and Andalusian
are very workable. Good job.

>I probably spent more time on the Andalusian and Spanish lists than any
of the others. They were very hard to "get right" and both Bill and I
still feel we might have missed something.

Overall, some very playable armies here. Each has
possibilities and most are competitive. I applaud the
list ho for insuring a wider range of competitive
armies even though it comes at a price of generic list
parts.

>See pesky consistency comments above.

More lists get L armed cav than previously which may or may not be
histical.

>Ugh, right, I dreamed up lances when there were none just to make the
armies "competitive". Let me restate here that the *historical record*
drives these lists, not competitive balance; Bill and I strive to make
these armies *historical* so needless to say, throw away comments like
the one above tend to annoy me just ever so slightly.. If I got lances
in there somewhere, it's because the sources state they have them or the
sources suggest that classifying something as having a lance isn't bogus
(in the case of something ambiguous). This is somewhat an interprative
exercise (the Lithuanian spisa as a weapon is a case in point in terms
of how to treat it in Warrior--look for a derivative of this in Holy
Warrior) and if someone wants to discuss the extant historical record
and how it's been interpretated, great, that's how we all raise the bar
on our educational aspect of this hobby and it's quite possible
something might make its way into lists that would otherwise have been
missed. I certainly do not know everything, for example in one
instance, I left lances out when they should have been included (haven't
updated that yet). But if someone simply wants to state "that's not
historical", with absolutely no specific source references to back them
up, I'll probably begin auto-deleting their posts without reading them.
Look at Greg's post on Knights o' St John for how I'd like to see this
type of thing occur.

>I love historical discussions and like to post minor tomes on certain
issues that are raised here (peruse back thru posts and you'll find
interesting material on stirrups and scythed chariots). My post on
scythed chariots was 30 August 2001. I think the stirrup one was about
8 months or so before that, I can't find it in my email archives. That
should give people an idea of what I feel helps the discussion along.

the
research on each list is good

>If that be the case, then when L-armed cav is shown, there's a good
chance the research turned up something that indicated said cavalry
should be armed with.......lances:):)

>Minor ranting completed:):)

Scott
List Ho

> >By breaking down how army lists are produced and
> "packaged", there will
> be a certain sameness since we're looking at similar
> military systems at
> work within a given period and geographic location.
> Plus, once constant
> complaint regarding every "other" set of army lists
> produced since 1980
> was the discrepency between allied/ethnic
> contingents from one list to
> another.

Let me start by stating that my review, was a review.
No a position paper. What you and I ultimately deem
correct history is perspective based upon sources. I
do not contend anywhere in my review that what your
list provide is ahistorical. I do question some
things, but on the basis of what I know as opposed to
what you know. For example, in 7th and now Warrior
the javelin is a predominant weapon, yet it is not
thus historically. While the javelin has always been
used in some form, being coupled with the "short
spear" (presumably for jabbing) makes it hard to
differntiate between fighting styles; thus the line
between two handed kontos weilding byzantine cavalry
and jabbing short spear actions of Breton are diverged
into one with a lance and the other with a javelin.
it is a game mechanic with which i live. However, I
do not call a spear used on horseback a lance. A
lance has an entirely different approach to combat
that involves no fencing techniques.


> Hence, I put them in
> Imperial Warrior
> since they "fit" there better as opponents for most
> of their historical
> opponents.

No real complaint here, but the African Vandals and
visigoths fought the early byzantines under
Belasaurius and Narses. Just a point of order.

> >Chris feels the list has been choked, gutted, and
> burnt at the stake
> (I'm paraphrasing here). Most people dislike 2HCW
> because of it's lack
> of staying power. If it evaporates, all those Irr C
> Bondi potentially
> start hating life. But it's nice to see that what
> one person sees as
> crap, another person sees as dangerous:) I've
> always liked that in
> ancient/medieval gaming.

A block of 8 elements of IrrB/C LHI/LMI 2Hcw/sh in a
block 2 E wide..... whicked against infantry. Stay in
the brush against horsies. Who needs staying power
when you hit that hard and can take CPF at a lower
rate due to per/fig CP. Expand on followup....

> More lists get L armed cav than previously which may
> or may not be
> histical.
>
> >Ugh, right, I dreamed up lances when there were
> none just to make the
> armies "competitive". Let me restate here that the
> *historical record*
> drives these lists, not competitive balance; Bill
> and I strive to make
> these armies *historical* so needless to say, throw
> away comments like
> the one above tend to annoy me just ever so
> slightly.. If I got lances
> in there somewhere, it's because the sources state
> they have them or the
> sources suggest that classifying something as having
> a lance isn't bogus
> (in the case of something ambiguous).

See my comments above of historical gaming as history.
As a historian, the only thing I know as factual is
that history is not factual. If you have two primary
sources each writing about a battle, what one might
call a lance another might call a spear or javelin.
Scribes, particularly in the dark ages, were not
military men by any means. What they see a warrior
carrying may be a lance to us, but to their knowledge
there was no difference between a lance and an
javelin. It is not a lance if weilded with two hands
in a mounted fencing montion, reguardless of what our
game system calls it. Goths, for example are Kn in
DBM, HC in Warrior; In history, Goths were mounted
barbarians. They fought as they would have fought on
foot but they were on horseback. Sarmaticized. A
Goth with a lance would presume that a lance is
something other than a lance and is, admittedly,
consistent with other spear armed mounted in Warrior.
that the Goths rode hard in the attack and other lance
armed peoples did not is merely a function of their
ethos more than their weapons systems. I find DBM's
catagorization of them as Kn perposterous for the very
reason. What Normans brought to the western world was
and entirely different way of conducting mounted
warfare. it was not consistent with Frankish
practise, nor Gothic practise. Lombards are noted as
using lances overhand, but such would be spears in our
modern understanding.

Anyway, your presumption that my statement was out of
hand and a dig are both incorrect. I, like yourself,
am not a simpleton spewing forth non-sequiter
information. However, to scold me for my opinion
after giving your overall work a "-A" is uncalled for
and petty.

> But if someone simply wants to
> state "that's not
> historical", with absolutely no specific source
> references to back them
> up, I'll probably begin auto-deleting their posts
> without reading them.
> Look at Greg's post on Knights o' St John for how
> I'd like to see this
> type of thing occur.

Here you presume to tell me how to post, threaten to
delete posts not to your dialogue specifications, and
point me to where I can learn to post accordingly. If
I can't speak my mind without people flying off to the
defensive zone, then there is no use is remaining.

> >If that be the case, then when L-armed cav is
> shown, there's a good
> chance the research turned up something that
> indicated said cavalry
> should be armed with.......lances:):)

I have always had issue with the WRG method of weapon
catagorization. That is the basis for my statement.
Not your research. The fact that you'ld attempt to
scold and correct me for my opinion on an area I've a
Masters Degree in, simply because I didn't provide a
monograph siting original sources, I personally find
presumptuous and hardly the attitude someone wanting
to promote their work should take.

If you think I'm mad, you are correct. There are no
smiley faces in this post. I'm doing your recruiting,
playing up your works, and even giving your army list
book a very favorable review--for FREE! yet you spend
the bulk of your response in overstating your case as
though before a grand jury over one negative comment.
Grow up.

boyd




=====
Wake up and smell the Assyrians

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.yahoo.com

[Greg Regets]

Hello Boyd ...

I really don't think Scott was being heavy-handed or insulting ... at least on
purpose.

I worked for many years at an advertising agency, where sharply opinionated
people communicated via email at the rate of 100+ each per day. One thing we
found is that email often makes funny things sound sarcastic, assertive things
sound rude, and opinions sound like one is preaching. None of this is
intentional, and in many large corporations, they actually send emailers to
classes to learn how to come off a bit better.

Having said that, I do have two thoughts, :)

You discussed the Norman archers and your belief that they should be LI or LMI.
What is that based on? Please understand that I don't mean that sarcastically, I
really do want to know. I have looked at some organization and numbers for
Hastings, and making the archers LI or even LMI would give them far more
frontage than was attributed to them at the battle. Is there something I'm
missing? You might be quite right about this, but you have to tell us why, or it
looks (not saying it is) that you just hate the close orders archers so you want
them loose or open. You bolster this thought by telling us you will get around
this by not buying them. Please, give us your thoughts.

The lance arguement will just have to be contentuous. One of my favorite saying
is, "If these historical soldiers knew they were actually playing "Warrior" (7th
at the time I heard it), they would have used different weapons and tactics to
be more effective. I think what Scott was striving for (and I'm guessing) was
three pronged;

What was the weapon, what did it look like?
How was it used tactically?
What effect did it have on the enemy?

My thoughts on the old book lists were that the author put far too much stock in
the length of the weapon. Some other lists put, in my opinion, put far too much
stock in the way the weapon was used. I prefer the use of all three thoughts in
equal measure.

As an example, I think the Roman Lancea (in the very late, Late and Patrician
period, should be an LTS, since two sources (I'm not looking them up now, but
will if asked) clearly state that this weapon was adopted because it was better
against cavalry.

So, its a matter of looking at all the effects. That is a historical source, but
likewise, the lancea didn't prove more effective, so perhaps the author ignored
that thought, and perhaps he was right to do so, keeping them JLS.

Points to ponder to be sure.

Greg


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

[scott holder]

I think what Scott was striving for (and I'm guessing) was three
pronged;

What was the weapon, what did it look like?
How was it used tactically?
What effect did it have on the enemy?

>Precisely. If there is some ambiguity in the sources, or the source
information doesn't fit nicely into a Warrior category, then I tend to
look at #3 as the "deciding factor". Not a perfect solution but no one,
to date, has come up with a perfect solution.

>Another way around some of the classification limitations are list
rules.

My thoughts on the old book lists were that the author put far too much
stock in the length of the weapon. Some other lists put, in my opinion,
put far too much stock in the way the weapon was used. I prefer the use
of all three thoughts in equal measure.

>Perhaps a couple of examples will help explain this, two that are
"solved" (I think) and one that's not (yet).

Solved: Almughavars. Every account I've read speaks glowingly of these
guys. And yet, old lists (and the inherent restrictions in weapon
classification) doomed these guys to general suck-dom. The reason was
lack of shields. According to Ian Heath (and I've got his sources on
these, just not in front of me), there are 1-2 references to Almughavars
having shields. So, I latched onto that possibly more than the
historical record might indicate because of the Almughavar's tactical
effect. Bingo, problem solved.

Solved, well, kinda: Anti-elephant parties. I'm less sanquine about
this in terms of how well it "fixes" a problem but raise it because it's
a list rule at work attempting to get around weapon classification.
Going strictly by the record, these guys are again gonna suck against
their intended targets, elephants (after you factor in most likely
tactical situations). Hence, we tried to find a way to stick as close
to the record as possible while enabling their tactical effect (or
potential) to be realized vs elephants. Jury is still out on this one.

Not-solved: 2HCT. Tom McMillen has pointed out some of the problems
dealing with the transitional period between the late Medieval era and
Renaissance and the 2HCT typifies the inherent problems with this. I
mean there were *reasons* that 15th century European armies began
adopting the weapon despite the fact that in Warrior, almost no one
wants it. Derek Downs has a "novel" approach in that he runs tourneys
in which 2HCT fights 1.5 ranks. Obviously there is no good historical
data to support this approach under 1-2 (as Greg outlines above) but he
(Derek) is aiming at #3, the tactical effect the unit had. Well, maybe.
Once you start reviewing armies of the period, you discover that while
2HCT-armed "men-at-arms" were around, they're kinda like Vikings, they
have a better "rep" than their actual track record would show. Of
course I'm not totally submersed in this era as yet so as I delve
deeper, that perception might change. When I get to Feudal Warrior, I
will need to grapple with this somehow, or perhaps not. I've not dived
into the period in the detail I'll need to make adequate "value
judgements". Look at the list rule for Swiss pikemen/halbadiers in Fast
Warrior to get some idea of how something like this can be fixed. The
gory historical details for that were provided by our very own Sean
Scott. Once we had all the pertinent data, we could then come up with
what we *think* is something that stays true to the record and yet
provides the tactical effect we're trying to recreate. This beats
things like "let the Swiss regulars charge impetuously" for which the
historical record suggests would be totally inappropriate. Just an
example.

Another example are the Agulani (which appear in Holy Warrior). If we
go strictly by weapon classification, at worse, they are some morale
grade of Irr SHC, SA, Sh. Woo hoo, we're gonna buy these guys in droves
now! At best, they are some morale grade of Irr SHC with SA and Sh but
we give em a bow, again, the record is spotty on this. And yet, the two
extant contemporary accounts of them indicate these guys purposefully
didn't want "real" weapons. Instead, they wanted to trot into whoever
they trotted into and begin slashing with a sword. And they were a
highly respected group of combatants among their enemies, namely the
Crusaders. Currently in the draft, they're typed Irr A because of this
but there will be some type of list rule to account for their effect, be
it the typical 1.5 ranks charging, countercharging, or pursuing, or some
type of "swordsman rule" where they get +1 in combat forever and ever,
or a combination of all of em.

Scott
List Ho

Greg, I will annotate per point below.

--- "Greggory A. Regets" <gar@...> wrote:
> Hello Boyd ...
>
> I really don't think Scott was being heavy-handed or
> insulting ... at least on purpose.

Intentions are not result.

>
> I worked for many years at an advertising agency,
> where sharply opinionated people communicated via
> email at the rate of 100+ each per day. One thing we
> found is that email often makes funny things sound
> sarcastic, assertive things sound rude, and opinions
> sound like one is preaching. None of this is
> intentional, and in many large corporations, they
> actually send emailers to classes to learn how to
> come off a bit better.

I have been on listservs and mailing list since 1989
when one had to know Unix command line in order to
speak. I fully understand the difficulties, thus my
response. People need to be aware of what they are
saying and *how* they are saying it. I can't see a
smile as emoticons are often misleading referentially.

>
> Having said that, I do have two thoughts,
>
> You discussed the Norman archers and your belief
> that they should be LI or LMI. What is that based
> on? Please understand that I don't mean that
> sarcastically, I really do want to know. I have
> looked at some organization and numbers for
> Hastings, and making the archers LI or even LMI
> would give them far more frontage than was
> attributed to them at the battle. Is there something
> I'm missing? You might be quite right about this,
> but you have to tell us why, or it looks (not saying
> it is) that you just hate the close orders archers
> so you want them loose or open. You bolster this
> thought by telling us you will get around this by
> not buying them. Please, give us your thoughts.

Like you I don't have any sources here at my desk.
And as I'm leaving for active duty at 0400 in the
morning, I doubt I'll even remember this discussion by
time I get back. However, here are some notations I
remember. The Milites charged through the bowmen to
hit the Saxons when it became obvious the bowmen were
having no effect--i.e. disrupt. Another reference
refers to these troops in terms of pesantry, so no
formal military organization is suggested. IMNSHO,
close order formation requires some ability to
maintain line, move together, and shoot in volleys.
No where do the Norman archers exibit or have
historical notations which allude to these atributes.
At Hastings, archers ran forward and collected arrows
to reshoot; not a close order drill I'm sure. Last,
simply look at the Bayeux Tapastry. Close order
spearmen, and cavalry are depicted, but all archers
are running around by themselves, which is consistent
with LI.

While I agree that LI and LMI would provide an
unwarranted extention of coverage, this is a problem
of game mechanics not history.

>
> The lance arguement will just have to be
> contentuous. One of my favorite saying is, "If these
> historical soldiers knew they were actually playing
> "Warrior" (7th at the time I heard it), they would
> have used different weapons and tactics to be more
> effective. I think what Scott was striving for (and
> I'm guessing) was three pronged;
>
> What was the weapon, what did it look like?
> How was it used tactically?
> What effect did it have on the enemy?

A lance by definition is a pole weapon used to strike
with a single stab. Often missing a ducking target,
the effects are essentially the same in that the enemy
is busy avoiding the weapon instead of striking back.
Multiply this effect by 100s and you have lance armed
mounted attacking infantry. The effects on infantry
are to cause disorder and loose cohesion which was and
is the maintstay of anti infantry tactics. Disorder,
even as Warrior plays, is a killer for infantry moreso
than mounted which are my the nature of horses always
in some disorder. What the weapon looked like is what
we receive in historical accounts. How it was used is
often only refered to indirectly in historical
accounts--for example "the onrush of the X cavalry
swept the Y infantry away like a sudden storm". We
interpret, sometimes rightly sometimes wrongly, that
the mounted were too feirce on impact; more times than
not, it was the unsteadyness of the infantry that
caused the effect. Would the victorious king of the
cavalry worry about the sorry assed opponants'
contribution to his victory and insure the scribe
attributed his empire winning charge to poor
opponants? Never happen.
>
> As an example, I think the Roman Lancea (in the very
> late, Late and Patrician period, should be an LTS,
> since two sources (I'm not looking them up now, but
> will if asked) clearly state that this weapon was
> adopted because it was better against cavalry.

One assumption when refering to weapons evolution in
the west is that clibaniforii are the direct
progenetors of lance armed cavalry. this is mistaken.
Roman lance armed cavalry only appear in small
numbers for two very Roman reasons. 1. They were not
as effective as foederatii contingents, and 2. the
feoderatii were cheeper, costing nothing to train with
no payoff upon death. Many many mounted forces in
history used a long spear, but not as a lance.
Overhead and two handed stabbing and fencing require
greater horseman skills and less speed in order to be
effective. That is the basis for my original
statement. "Historical or not" was the phrase I use.
Meaning "I don't care" as the game mechanics, as you
state here, make it work for the game.

>
> So, its a matter of looking at all the effects. That
> is a historical source, but likewise, the lancea
> didn't prove more effective, so perhaps the author
> ignored that thought, and perhaps he was right to do
> so, keeping them JLS.

Aside from massed heavily armed mounted spear armed
troops like later Byzantines, Sassanids, Parthian
nobiles and the like, cavalry fought with swords.
swords in Warrior are, as Scott admits, worthless.
the effect of troops in history has more to do with
*willingness* than weapon in any event. Willing to
charge, or stand or countercharge. Historically few
weapons systems made dynamic change in warfare. The
couched lance is one, Longbow another, halberd a
third, and pike, and pulim. I find Phil Barkers
obsession with Romans and their use of the Pulim to be
the basis for the assumption that all javelins had
some incredible effect. I have and will always find
the inclusion of JLS to be a trick of the game to give
effect to troops that would otherwise be exactly the
same across the army lists as "infantry" or "cavalry".
To make one infantry better than the other, include
the effect of a thrown short spear; thus the
mechanics work to show one historical oppoant better
than his weaker historical neighbor. We can't factor
in game terms effects such as socio-economic and
political reasoning. Phil Barker is to blame for
this, I know, but the end result has been years of
lists being worthless exclusively because the lack of
JLS. Now Scott has basically extended the JLS to in
effect mean *normally armed* which could just as
easily been done with SA but would have been without
presedence. As I recall in my review, I noted that
*many* lists were now viable for tournament. This is
a change for the good.

I am not begrudging the use of JLS in this way. I
don't like it as it assumes a superiority of javelins
over typical fighting systems instead of an overlay,
but then the game plays it out fine, now. Why else
would I have been so freaken happy that my crusader
close order bowmen have JLS/sh. Because we all know
this means they can at least have some prayer of
fighting HTH. Shieldless SA against impetuous LMI
J/sh is a rout.

boyd


=====
Wake up and smell the Assyrians

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.yahoo.com

[Greg Regets]

Too bad you are leaving Boyd, this was starting to be a good discussion. :-)

I have a bad habit in regards to Hastings, that being discounting much of what
was written by any of the authors other than Wace and Poitiers. Henry of
Huntington and the 'Carmen' seem like works written by a political action
committee, and at any rate, once an author tells me that the Normans had 60,000
men at the battle and 8,000 ships in the invasion force, creditablility is at
issue.

Your point on the Bayou tapestry is well taken and is food for thought. Consider
this though.

While it is true that the archers were not the least bit effective in ther first
attempt against the better armored Saxons (HI?), they did have a very good
effect against lesser armed men (MI?) when sent forward after the feingned
charges. Would two on a stand or even three on a stand archers be able to do
this against shielded MI on higher ground? Probably not. So, classing them that
way is the best and only way to get that effect in the game.

Likewise, Poitiers writes that the only reason William sent his archers forward
in the first place, was the feeling that the Saxons would not charge them out of
their fixed positions, and even if they did, this would draw them out for
dispatch by his mounted troops. This of course would not apply if the archers
were able to skirmish.

Anyway, a great discussion. Lets have more of this sort of thing on this board!

Greg


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

--- "Greggory A. Regets" <gar@...> wrote:
> Too bad you are leaving Boyd, this was starting to
> be a good discussion. :-)

the life of a clone is not an easy life :)

>
> I have a bad habit in regards to Hastings, that
> being discounting much of what was written by any of
> the authors other than Wace and Poitiers. Henry of
> Huntington and the 'Carmen' seem like works written
> by a political action committee, and at any rate,
> once an author tells me that the Normans had 60,000
> men at the battle and 8,000 ships in the invasion
> force, creditablility is at issue.

Fortuneatily, Hastings is one of the most documented
events in british history. not only is the field
about the size of a rugby feild, the hill is almost
imperseptable. At least to my infantry eye...

The inflation aside, sources such as the pipe rolls
and census from this and slightly later eras show that
numbers are not strictly reguarded as *soldiers*.
Thus when considering 60,000 men, these include waifs,
coblers, etc. Still inflacted, but headcount was only
as persice as the scribe can count :)

> Your point on the Bayou tapestry is well taken and
> is food for thought. Consider this though.
>
> While it is true that the archers were not the least
> bit effective in ther first attempt against the
> better armored Saxons (HI?), they did have a very
> good effect against lesser armed men (MI?) when sent
> forward after the feingned charges.

The Great Fyrd at Hastings were locals conscripted for
this battle to extend the line. Remember the Saxon
army had just wrode the length of the country twice,
fought a pitched battle in which it was decimated, and
was very tiny by the time in arrived. Harold had sent
word ahead to assemble the Great Fyrd levies, and
these men were the "lesser" men of whom you speak.

The archers went forward the second time, as my
understanding to support the Norman infantry
contingent which was quite small IIRC.

It is also postulated that the feigned charges were
typical Norman practise of charging to note the
steadyness of the enemy line, then turning aside.
However, if memory serves they went into the Saxons
along the line are were repulsed.


Would two on a
> stand or even three on a stand archers be able to do
> this against shielded MI on higher ground? Probably
> not. So, classing them that way is the best and only
> way to get that effect in the game.

Again, a game mechanic in order to contribute
historical results. no problem, just the inability of
the close order to work with HC makes the attack less
than historic in a scenic sense. Also, the fact that
the archers were ignored <insert pictures of Huscarls
presenting their asses> clearly shows that their
effect was less than zero. Against the ignorant
masses, almost any targe that looked easy--i.e. light
infantry running about--would tempt them to be
couragious enough to charge forward ignoring the
saftey of the line. A mass of MI bowmen moveing up
and firing vollies might have the opposite effect on
men who didn't want to be there anyway.

>
> Likewise, Poitiers writes that the only reason
> William sent his archers forward in the first place,
> was the feeling that the Saxons would not charge
> them out of their fixed positions, and even if they
> did, this would draw them out for dispatch by his
> mounted troops. This of course would not apply if
> the archers were able to skirmish.

See above. Any archers would have routed the moment
heavy infantry began to move on them, but running MI
is not something you can get through. As I recall the
Norman foot were routed, as were the mounted
initially. Williams forces were exhausted for the
most part in Warrior terms by the time the Great Fyrd
broke ranks and charged. Didn't william and Odo have
to cajole the disorganized milties to remount and take
advantage of the gap. Seems I remember something
about clubbing :)

> Anyway, a great discussion. Lets have more of this
> sort of thing on this board!
>
> Greg

When I return, we can discuss Vikings and how they
should automatically outscout everyone if the table
has a Rv or waterway. :)

then perhaps we can discuss how Maurikian Byzantine
EHC should get to charge impetouos against foot as it
states to do in the Strategekon. of course burning
the woods should be an automatic option too. :)

then how African Vandal should all be IrrA HC J/sh,
just because with a name like Vandal, CRAZY should be
your first name. :)

then, and then....we can discuss the Sarmatian
feoderatii in Britan and how they might have been the
template for the authorian tales against the Saxons.

But then again, Since I'm wedded to the Normans for
the foreseeable future, we can move into my favorite
subjects the wild brothers of Sicily...aka lords of
the new holy land.

boyd
putting on my clone suit in about 6 hours



=====
Wake up and smell the Assyrians

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.yahoo.com