Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

----- Original Message -----
From: "michael knowles" <avus@...>
To: <tors1@...>
Cc: <TheESG@...>
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 4:59 AM
Subject: From Ermine Street Guard


>
>
> Dear Alex
>
> In reply to your questions about the ranges of Roman weaponry:
>
> 1. Pilum, charging - about 50 feet
> 2. Pilum, stationary - about 65 feet
> 3. Auxiliaries did not have throwing javelins, but thrusting
spears. -
> likewise cavalry.
> 4. Hamian bow - about 170 yards
> 5. Catapulta - about 400 yards.
>
> I hope this helps
>
> Best Wishes
>
> Chris Haines
> Chairman Ermine Street Guard
>
>



Roman Auxillery inf and cav did not use javalins, but thrusting
spears. As far as I know the Roman cav never used javalin either but
thrusting spear. The list needs to be changed I think. Ranges for
bows etc !!!!.

Kingo

[John Murphy]

Only two comments.

First, the Roman cavalry definitely used throwing javelins, and
their use has been demonstrated by re-enactors with historical
equipment etcetera. If that were not enough the training documents
of some Roman cavalry are still extant and include training in
throwing them, much more than thrusting with them actually. For an
example of this see Ann Hyland "Training the Roman Cavalry" based on
the Ars Tactica of Arrian (pretty complete translation included in
the book with about an equal amount of commentary - reading this is
what endeared these useless Warrior troops to me, unfortunate for my
army list construction). Given this I wonder about auxilia too
although I am less conversant in that subject.

Second, it is (to me) quite counter-intuitive that legionary threw
pila from a standstill at all, let alone further than when they were
charging. However, that I know much less about and in any event it
has little bearing on game play since it handled as part of HtH.

Of course it is likely you all know something about all of this of
which I am unaware, but this is my at least partially educated
understanding of it at least.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Alex King" <tors1@o...> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "michael knowles" <avus@h...>
> To: <tors1@o...>
> Cc: <TheESG@a...>
> Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 4:59 AM
> Subject: From Ermine Street Guard
>
>
> >
> >
> > Dear Alex
> >
> > In reply to your questions about the ranges of Roman weaponry:
> >
> > 1. Pilum, charging - about 50 feet
> > 2. Pilum, stationary - about 65 feet
> > 3. Auxiliaries did not have throwing javelins, but thrusting
> spears. -
> > likewise cavalry.
> > 4. Hamian bow - about 170 yards
> > 5. Catapulta - about 400 yards.
> >
> > I hope this helps
> >
> > Best Wishes
> >
> > Chris Haines
> > Chairman Ermine Street Guard
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Roman Auxillery inf and cav did not use javalins, but thrusting
> spears. As far as I know the Roman cav never used javalin either
but
> thrusting spear. The list needs to be changed I think. Ranges for
> bows etc !!!!.
>
> Kingo

I think the problem is that Roman cavalry use a thrusting spear as their
main H2H weapon, and carry jls too, but wargame rules are locked into lance
or jls. The difference between cav lts, Alexandrian type Sarissa and
couched lance used by knights is not reflected in rules and it would be a
massive departure from standard wargame thinking to expand the list. The
fact that we play so many armies agaist non historical opponants does'nt
help either. There are other instance where tradition has been lock in to
wargame thinking. How about Republican Roman legionaries ?, they fought as
loose order troops, with three feet between each rank and each file twice
the distance between each file of pikemen who had virtually no space between
the ranks and files. I can hear the collective groan at the thought of
classing Roman legionaries as loose order!!!.

I must admit I'm not botherd too much about just games, but I want rules to
reflect accuracy so that campaign games can work better.

read this link http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/polybius-maniple.html

Kingo

.

[joncleaves]

I can hear the collective groan at the thought of
>classing Roman legionaries as loose order!!!.>>

We actually looked at this for Marians, but there simply was not the evidence
and much evidence to the contrary. We will relook again when we get to
Classical. That's a list book away, but I did want to point out that we are not
averse to what the possibilities might be.

Jon