Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Tom McMillan]

In a message dated 3/5/2005 5:16:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, Todd Schneider
writes:
***I'll be honest, I don't know if your trying to be
serious, or funny. The Halberd was the result of the
aforementioned arms race, where the spear was found to
be inadequate against armored troopers. *******

I was being perfectly serious. MNilitary history was not a linear
progression, it was an ebb and flow. Certainly, there were some technological
improvements after which there was no turning back- basically three- chariot to
cavalry, stirrup/couched lance, and full steel plate armor. The halberd was a
reaction to the last.
So, yes, the halberd should be better against SH troops than the pilum , as
I stated. But against ferociously charging poorly armoured barbarians, can
you really argue it would be better than the pilum gladius combination?? The
Roman has a huge shiled, is covered in armor, breaks the impetus of the charge
with pila then uses his stabbing sword from 'concealment'. The halberdier is
swinging this 5 foot axe, virtually unprotected.
The Roman system was designed to fight barbarians, the halberd was
designed to fight armoured knights. - Tom


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/5/2005 06:24:06 Central Standard Time, Quahog25@...
writes:

The Roman system was designed to fight barbarians, the halberd was
designed to fight armoured knights. - Tom>>


Well, the 'western halberd' anyway...

Tom, give the Romans a try against barbarian foot - I think you'll be
pleased. They certainly do better than 2HCT in this instance.

J








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

[Ewan McNay]

On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 Quahog25@... wrote:
> So, yes, the halberd should be better against SH troops than the pilum , as
> I stated. But against ferociously charging poorly armoured barbarians, can
> you really argue it would be better than the pilum gladius combination?? The
> Roman has a huge shiled, is covered in armor, breaks the impetus of the charge
> with pila then uses his stabbing sword from 'concealment'. The halberdier is
> swinging this 5 foot axe, virtually unprotected.
> The Roman system was designed to fight barbarians, the halberd was
> designed to fight armoured knights. - Tom
>

Tom - I think your arguments (and certainly your discussion) have been
extremely cogent; just a couple of comments.

First, the tournament viability of Irr LMI armies has not been good at any
time over the past 20 years, with the exceptions of (1) highly-buffed,
HTW-using Spanish, and (2) Gauls when the player is using loaded dice.
They can be fun, but there are just too many things they have trouble
against. Now, you suggested that there has been a shift in the balance
against halberdiers, and I agree; I think that the Scots-English battles,
with Highlanders on one side and billmen on the other, may come closest to
possibly offering insight (but I don't know enough of the period to know
what it would be!). Certainly, as a Pict player, i can see the
disheartenment (is that a word?)

Second, I would still rather take a late roman legion than a bunch of
halberdiers against the impetuous barbarians, so I'm not sure that your
example above is the best, despite the validity of the general point.

Does anyone here have a consistent winning record using barbarian foot?
Well, perhaps Chris Damour would like to chime in on how to beat stuff
with naked pointy-stick-wielding troops? Or anyone else? Serious
request.

e

[Todd Schneider]

Well, as I mentioned in a previous post, I don't know
of any "Barbarian" foot (or what Warrior would
classify as Loose Order JLS Types) fighting and
winning against 2HCT aremd Close order guys. Do you
know of any examples.

Furthermore, as you stated, the 2HCT was the end
result of an Armor race, desgned to strike and kill a
man protected by the heaviest armor of the day, right?
So why should it's impact on a less heavily armored
man be less?

I am not saying it's any Better than the Late Imperial
Pilum/Gladius combination, but you seem to be saying
that it should be worse, which is either a
misinterpretation on my part, or someones moved the
goalposts.

Anyone here who's swung a halberd care to comment?

Todd


--- Quahog25@... wrote:


---------------------------------
In a message dated 3/5/2005 5:16:56 AM Eastern
Standard Time, Todd Schneider
writes:
***I'll be honest, I don't know if your trying to be
serious, or funny. The Halberd was the result of the
aforementioned arms race, where the spear was found to
be inadequate against armored troopers. *******

I was being perfectly serious. MNilitary history was
not a linear
progression, it was an ebb and flow. Certainly, there
were some technological
improvements after which there was no turning back-
basically three- chariot to
cavalry, stirrup/couched lance, and full steel plate
armor. The halberd was a
reaction to the last.
So, yes, the halberd should be better against SH
troops than the pilum , as
I stated. But against ferociously charging poorly
armoured barbarians, can
you really argue it would be better than the pilum
gladius combination?? The
Roman has a huge shiled, is covered in armor, breaks
the impetus of the charge
with pila then uses his stabbing sword from
'concealment'. The halberdier is
swinging this 5 foot axe, virtually unprotected.
The Roman system was designed to fight barbarians,
the halberd was
designed to fight armoured knights. - Tom


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


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.