Warrior Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules
A Four Horsemen Enterprises Rules Set
 
  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups AlbumAlbum   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

knights and army lists

 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Egroup Archives
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 78

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2001 5:13 am    Post subject: knights and army lists


On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 deothoric@... wrote:

> but research shows that late German knights rarely carried lance, so
> watch out for the new lists !
>
>
OK, I'm going to rant a bit here. This is a good opportunity to address
some concerns about the new lists.

Let me start by saying that I've played knight armies almost exclusively
since the inception of 7th edition. I've also done quite a bit of
reading/research on warfare of the period. Most of what I have to say here
is reflected in either Charles Oman's "The Art of War in the Middle
Ages" or in Phillippe Contamine's "War in the Middle Ages". Both are very
readable, and very informative. Oman's book is difficult to find in
bookstores, but should be in any major university library. Contamine's
books more readily available, though you may have to ask a bookstore to
order it for you.

First of all, Jon Cleaves has said, and I totally agree, that the purpose
of the rules is to capture the _function_ of troop types rather than the
literal representation of them. In that spirit, the real question is not
whether or not a particular troop type carried a lance, but whether they
functioned as shock cavalry attempting to achieve tactical advantage
through the power of an all-out charge at the enemy.

Early in the Middle Ages the knight and foot soldier went through a kind
of arms race, each attempting to devise weapons to outreach the other. The
lance replaced the javelin for horsemen. Foot soldiers responded by moving
from what we would call JLS to what we would call LTS. Knights responded
by adopting a longer lance. You'll note, for example, that in the later
Middle Ages many shields had a notch in which to couch a lance. This
innovation was required to balance the longer lances of that period. Foot
soldiers responded by replacing LTS with what we would call pike.

Then a funny thing happens. Both the shield and lance disappear from the
knight. There are a lot of reasons for this, some of them having to do
with the passing of the chivalric age and evolution to an era of
professional armies. But knights surely did _not_ choose to equip
themselves _less_ effectively for battle. The only common sense conclusion
is that neither lance nor shield were effective.

As for lance: the reality is -- and Oman's accounts reflect this
beautifully -- that almost no battle between knights and foot soldiers
ever resulted in a direct collision between a steady line of foot and a
steady charge of knights. Men do not like to be run over by massive
horses. Horses do not like to impale themselves on pointy sticks. The
result, time after time, is one big game of chicken, where either the foot
soldiers fail to hold the line and get ridden over, or where the horses
lose their nerve, and the knights lose cohesion before making contact. The
presence or absence of a lance has no bearing on this outcome. Add to this
the fact that the lance is an encumberance that must be shed in close
combat, and you can see how over time the lance took on a largely symbolic
role and ceased to be used on the battlefield.

The point is that this in no way reflects a change in the function of
knights on the battlefield. Knights are there to charge full-out and break
the enemy line. It is the full weight of horse, armor, and man that
achieves this shock of impact, rather than the lance per se. The best way
we have of simulating this function in Warrior is with the lance weapon
type, and with that weapon type effective in 1 1/2 ranks.

As to shields: I have always found it odd that WRG could recognize that
late Medieval SHI were so heavily armored as to gain no benefit from a
shield, but somehow this reasoning doesn't apply to late Medieval SHK. If
you think through the logic of this, the implication is that the shield is
somehow there for the benefit of the horse -- surely an absurd conclusion.

Now, I've never complained to much about this. Saving 2 points a figure on
SHK isn't such a bad deal. Basically you're getting the equivalent of
slightly more expensive and significantly more effective EHK. But from a
common sense point of view, there is no reason what the actual absence of
shields from late Medieval SHK should be interpreted as the functional
detriment in game mechanics of counting those troops as shieldless. Go
look at the armor exhibit in the basement of the Art Institute in Chicago
and tell me what possible benefit a shield would be to a horseman in
_that_ kind of plate armor.

In summary: please count all knights as fighting with lance, regardless of
the particulars of weapon choice in practice at the time, and please
consider counting all SHK as shielded, regardless of whether they actually
had shields, just as we _already_ do for SHI.


Mark

Mark Stone || strider@... || http://digitalpilgrim.com
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing
left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
-Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Ed Forbes
Centurion
Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1092

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2001 7:33 am    Post subject: Re: knights and army lists


I agree with Mark ( I know, its the kiss of death ).

My understanding of Byzantine formations also brings up this same point
of the lance not being the supreme weapon of cav. I understand the
Byzantine formations using lance in the front rank, cav with swords in
the follow up ranks, and bow to the flanks. The lance makes a very bad
close combat weapon when nose to nose. The lance was used to gain a
slight advantage for the front rank and swords were used in the follow up
ranks to protect the now near helpless lancers.

Lancers in a front or second rank where the charge was stalled would be
at extreme disadvantage in hand to hand against those with war hammers or
such. This all happened in the first seconds of combat so should not be
considered as happening in follow up "game rounds".

WRG Renaissance 2nd edition captured this fairly well with lance only
good in the first charge, taking a minus for additional charges as the
lance tended to be discarded immediately after combat to fight with war
hammer, sword, or whatever other hand weapon was the choice de jure.

Rank and a half should be for cav units that historically preferred close
combat, not just those with a certain weapon whose effect in the game can
not be supported by history. Rank and a half should be a list option as
was wedge in 7th and before.


Ed F

On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 19:13:02 -0700 (PDT) Mark Stone <strider@...>
writes:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 deothoric@... wrote:
>
> > but research shows that late German knights rarely carried lance,
> so
> > watch out for the new lists !
> >
> >
> OK, I'm going to rant a bit here. This is a good opportunity to
> address
> some concerns about the new lists.
>
> Let me start by saying that I've played knight armies almost
> exclusively
> since the inception of 7th edition. I've also done quite a bit of
> reading/research on warfare of the period. Most of what I have to
> say here
> is reflected in either Charles Oman's "The Art of War in the Middle
> Ages" or in Phillippe Contamine's "War in the Middle Ages". Both are
> very
> readable, and very informative. Oman's book is difficult to find in
> bookstores, but should be in any major university library.
> Contamine's
> books more readily available, though you may have to ask a bookstore
> to
> order it for you.
>
> First of all, Jon Cleaves has said, and I totally agree, that the
> purpose
> of the rules is to capture the _function_ of troop types rather than
> the
> literal representation of them. In that spirit, the real question is
> not
> whether or not a particular troop type carried a lance, but whether
> they
> functioned as shock cavalry attempting to achieve tactical advantage
> through the power of an all-out charge at the enemy.
>
> Early in the Middle Ages the knight and foot soldier went through a
> kind
> of arms race, each attempting to devise weapons to outreach the
> other. The
> lance replaced the javelin for horsemen. Foot soldiers responded by
> moving
> from what we would call JLS to what we would call LTS. Knights
> responded
> by adopting a longer lance. You'll note, for example, that in the
> later
> Middle Ages many shields had a notch in which to couch a lance. This
> innovation was required to balance the longer lances of that period.
> Foot
> soldiers responded by replacing LTS with what we would call pike.
>
> Then a funny thing happens. Both the shield and lance disappear from
> the
> knight. There are a lot of reasons for this, some of them having to
> do
> with the passing of the chivalric age and evolution to an era of
> professional armies. But knights surely did _not_ choose to equip
> themselves _less_ effectively for battle. The only common sense
> conclusion
> is that neither lance nor shield were effective.
>
> As for lance: the reality is -- and Oman's accounts reflect this
> beautifully -- that almost no battle between knights and foot
> soldiers
> ever resulted in a direct collision between a steady line of foot
> and a
> steady charge of knights. Men do not like to be run over by massive
> horses. Horses do not like to impale themselves on pointy sticks.
> The
> result, time after time, is one big game of chicken, where either
> the foot
> soldiers fail to hold the line and get ridden over, or where the
> horses
> lose their nerve, and the knights lose cohesion before making
> contact. The
> presence or absence of a lance has no bearing on this outcome. Add
> to this
> the fact that the lance is an encumberance that must be shed in
> close
> combat, and you can see how over time the lance took on a largely
> symbolic
> role and ceased to be used on the battlefield.
>
> The point is that this in no way reflects a change in the function
> of
> knights on the battlefield. Knights are there to charge full-out and
> break
> the enemy line. It is the full weight of horse, armor, and man that
> achieves this shock of impact, rather than the lance per se. The
> best way
> we have of simulating this function in Warrior is with the lance
> weapon
> type, and with that weapon type effective in 1 1/2 ranks.
>
> As to shields: I have always found it odd that WRG could recognize
> that
> late Medieval SHI were so heavily armored as to gain no benefit from
> a
> shield, but somehow this reasoning doesn't apply to late Medieval
> SHK. If
> you think through the logic of this, the implication is that the
> shield is
> somehow there for the benefit of the horse -- surely an absurd
> conclusion.
>
> Now, I've never complained to much about this. Saving 2 points a
> figure on
> SHK isn't such a bad deal. Basically you're getting the equivalent
> of
> slightly more expensive and significantly more effective EHK. But
> from a
> common sense point of view, there is no reason what the actual
> absence of
> shields from late Medieval SHK should be interpreted as the
> functional
> detriment in game mechanics of counting those troops as shieldless.
> Go
> look at the armor exhibit in the basement of the Art Institute in
> Chicago
> and tell me what possible benefit a shield would be to a horseman in
> _that_ kind of plate armor.
>
> In summary: please count all knights as fighting with lance,
> regardless of
> the particulars of weapon choice in practice at the time, and please
> consider counting all SHK as shielded, regardless of whether they
> actually
> had shields, just as we _already_ do for SHI.
>
>
> Mark
>
> Mark Stone || strider@... || http://digitalpilgrim.com
> "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is
> nothing
> left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
> -Antoine de
> Saint-Exupery
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
joncleaves
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2001 11:17 am    Post subject: Re: knights and army lists


<< that the purpose of the rules is to capture the _function_ of troop types
rather than the literal representation of them. In that spirit, the real
question is not
whether or not a particular troop type carried a lance, but whether they
functioned as shock cavalry attempting to achieve tactical advantage
through the power of an all-out charge at the enemy. >>


Have no fear Mark. I snipped your mail, but read every word and you are dead
on as far as I am concerned.

Thanks.
Jon


_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  

Legionary
Legionary


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 367

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2001 11:51 am    Post subject: Re: knights and army lists

Mark, great posting. Do the books you noted have a Burgundian section and or can you recommend any sources that do? I'm just getting into the period and would appreciate any help that you are anyone else could offer. Thanks, David.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  

Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 100

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2001 10:38 pm    Post subject: Re: knights and army lists


Hi Mark, I agree; its not what they were equipped with, its what they
did. That said, why should having a lance make Byzantines shock
troops, (which they weren't) and Charlemagne's cavalry inferior shock
troops because they have shorter sticks ?

--- In WarriorRules@y..., Mark Stone <strider@l...> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 deothoric@h... wrote:
>
> > but research shows that late German knights rarely carried lance,
so
> > watch out for the new lists !
> >
> >
> OK, I'm going to rant a bit here. This is a good opportunity to
address
> some concerns about the new lists.
>
> Let me start by saying that I've played knight armies almost
exclusively
> since the inception of 7th edition. I've also done quite a bit of
> reading/research on warfare of the period. Most of what I have to
say here
> is reflected in either Charles Oman's "The Art of War in the Middle
> Ages" or in Phillippe Contamine's "War in the Middle Ages". Both
are very
> readable, and very informative. Oman's book is difficult to find in
> bookstores, but should be in any major university library.
Contamine's
> books more readily available, though you may have to ask a
bookstore to
> order it for you.
>
> First of all, Jon Cleaves has said, and I totally agree, that the
purpose
> of the rules is to capture the _function_ of troop types rather
than the
> literal representation of them. In that spirit, the real question
is not
> whether or not a particular troop type carried a lance, but whether
they
> functioned as shock cavalry attempting to achieve tactical advantage
> through the power of an all-out charge at the enemy.
>
> Early in the Middle Ages the knight and foot soldier went through a
kind
> of arms race, each attempting to devise weapons to outreach the
other. The
> lance replaced the javelin for horsemen. Foot soldiers responded by
moving
> from what we would call JLS to what we would call LTS. Knights
responded
> by adopting a longer lance. You'll note, for example, that in the
later
> Middle Ages many shields had a notch in which to couch a lance. This
> innovation was required to balance the longer lances of that
period. Foot
> soldiers responded by replacing LTS with what we would call pike.
>
> Then a funny thing happens. Both the shield and lance disappear
from the
> knight. There are a lot of reasons for this, some of them having to
do
> with the passing of the chivalric age and evolution to an era of
> professional armies. But knights surely did _not_ choose to equip
> themselves _less_ effectively for battle. The only common sense
conclusion
> is that neither lance nor shield were effective.
>
> As for lance: the reality is -- and Oman's accounts reflect this
> beautifully -- that almost no battle between knights and foot
soldiers
> ever resulted in a direct collision between a steady line of foot
and a
> steady charge of knights. Men do not like to be run over by massive
> horses. Horses do not like to impale themselves on pointy sticks.
The
> result, time after time, is one big game of chicken, where either
the foot
> soldiers fail to hold the line and get ridden over, or where the
horses
> lose their nerve, and the knights lose cohesion before making
contact. The
> presence or absence of a lance has no bearing on this outcome. Add
to this
> the fact that the lance is an encumberance that must be shed in
close
> combat, and you can see how over time the lance took on a largely
symbolic
> role and ceased to be used on the battlefield.
>
> The point is that this in no way reflects a change in the function
of
> knights on the battlefield. Knights are there to charge full-out
and break
> the enemy line. It is the full weight of horse, armor, and man that
> achieves this shock of impact, rather than the lance per se. The
best way
> we have of simulating this function in Warrior is with the lance
weapon
> type, and with that weapon type effective in 1 1/2 ranks.
>
> As to shields: I have always found it odd that WRG could recognize
that
> late Medieval SHI were so heavily armored as to gain no benefit
from a
> shield, but somehow this reasoning doesn't apply to late Medieval
SHK. If
> you think through the logic of this, the implication is that the
shield is
> somehow there for the benefit of the horse -- surely an absurd
conclusion.
>
> Now, I've never complained to much about this. Saving 2 points a
figure on
> SHK isn't such a bad deal. Basically you're getting the equivalent
of
> slightly more expensive and significantly more effective EHK. But
from a
> common sense point of view, there is no reason what the actual
absence of
> shields from late Medieval SHK should be interpreted as the
functional
> detriment in game mechanics of counting those troops as shieldless.
Go
> look at the armor exhibit in the basement of the Art Institute in
Chicago
> and tell me what possible benefit a shield would be to a horseman in
> _that_ kind of plate armor.
>
> In summary: please count all knights as fighting with lance,
regardless of
> the particulars of weapon choice in practice at the time, and please
> consider counting all SHK as shielded, regardless of whether they
actually
> had shields, just as we _already_ do for SHI.
>
>
> Mark
>
> Mark Stone || strider@l... || http://digitalpilgrim.com
> "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is
nothing
> left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
> -Antoine de Saint-
Exupery

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Egroup Archives All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group