Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Paul Georgian]

In a message dated 12/23/2005 3:47:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, "cncbump"
_cncbump@..._ (mailto:cncbump@...) writes:

>>Your commentary on the Nike Byz's was enough to push me over the
fense and inspire my investment in that army in 25's. In doing my
own research, though, I am finding or rather failing to find data
that supports the Menaultoi being armed with Pike. At first glance I
was excited about the ability to have 8 elements of EHI armed with
Pike, but the notion of a full phalanx in the Nike army seems off and
I have certanily not found anything to support my creating such a
formation. Wouldn't just arming them with LTS that always fights at
2 ranks be more accurate? Or since they were an anti cav troop,
fights at 2 full ranks only against cav?<<

Well, as the author of Byzantine lists, I'll take the issue with this.
Frankly Menaulatoi are allowed pikes precisely to simulate their abilties
against cavalry. At the time I wrote the list, I wasn't aware I could build in
rules to cover special troops abilities. Hence the pikes to simulate their
effectiveness against mounted. Note since we don't really know how the
menaulatoi actually worked I allow maximum weapons flexiblity as a choice.
Though the
menaulatoi clearly was shorter than a traditional pike the descriptions of
it in action seem to indicated it performed as one in some respects. Now I
would do it differently and just make a special rule to simulate their
effectiveness vs mounted. Your idea is not a bad one. When we redo the lists
(Scott'll have to let me know when.) I'll have a different take on it.

>>As an ancillary, it seems that there is at least some evidence that
the weapon choice for the menaultoi should include 2HCT. Apparently
these troops were initially created as a defense against the various
enemy heavily armored cav and their preferred tactic was to kneel
with their short spear, topped with a long slashing blade, and attack
the undersides of the enemy horses.<<
Again, not a bad idea at all. Definitely merits consideration.

>>Besides the description in the Taktica writings supporting this,
circumstantial evidence exists in That both DBx and WAB categorize these troops
as the
equivilent of
billmen. Presumably they have done some historical research as well.<<

Well, I'd be careful of utilizing DBx and WAB as historical references.
The BTGG supplement for WAB (which is an admirable effort in general) does
a horrible job of simulating the Menaulatoi, IMHO.

Paul Georgian


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

[Chris Bump]

Paul,
I would not count any game as a source of historical data. I was
just pointing out that it was circumstantial because a. presumably
both groups of authors did some historical research and b. because
they came to the same conclusion. But as I wrote, circumstantial
only.

I am confused by your statement "Though the menaulatoi clearly was
shorter than a traditional pike the descriptions of it in action
seem to indicated it performed as one in some respects". By the
game definitions wouldn't that define it as an LTS? I think that I
understand your decision to make it a pike for the benefit of two
full ranks fighting at all times, but as a shorter weapon surely you
would agree that there is no foundation for the Menaultoi to be
operating in Warrior terms 4 deep with all ranks fighting.
That was the capability that I thought was mistakenly assigned them.
Chris

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, PaulByzan@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 12/23/2005 3:47:03 PM Eastern Standard
Time, "cncbump"
> _cncbump@v..._ (mailto:cncbump@v...) writes:
>
> >>Your commentary on the Nike Byz's was enough to push me over the
> fense and inspire my investment in that army in 25's. In doing my
> own research, though, I am finding or rather failing to find data
> that supports the Menaultoi being armed with Pike. At first glance
I
> was excited about the ability to have 8 elements of EHI armed with
> Pike, but the notion of a full phalanx in the Nike army seems off
and
> I have certanily not found anything to support my creating such a
> formation. Wouldn't just arming them with LTS that always fights
at
> 2 ranks be more accurate? Or since they were an anti cav troop,
> fights at 2 full ranks only against cav?<<
>
> Well, as the author of Byzantine lists, I'll take the issue with
this.
> Frankly Menaulatoi are allowed pikes precisely to simulate their
abilties
> against cavalry. At the time I wrote the list, I wasn't aware I
could build in
> rules to cover special troops abilities. Hence the pikes to
simulate their
> effectiveness against mounted. Note since we don't really know
how the
> menaulatoi actually worked I allow maximum weapons flexiblity as a
choice. Though the
> menaulatoi clearly was shorter than a traditional pike the
descriptions of
> it in action seem to indicated it performed as one in some
respects. Now I
> would do it differently and just make a special rule to simulate
their
> effectiveness vs mounted. Your idea is not a bad one. When we
redo the lists
> (Scott'll have to let me know when.) I'll have a different take on
it.
>
> >>As an ancillary, it seems that there is at least some evidence
that
> the weapon choice for the menaultoi should include 2HCT.
Apparently
> these troops were initially created as a defense against the
various
> enemy heavily armored cav and their preferred tactic was to kneel
> with their short spear, topped with a long slashing blade, and
attack
> the undersides of the enemy horses.<<
> Again, not a bad idea at all. Definitely merits consideration.
>
> >>Besides the description in the Taktica writings supporting this,
> circumstantial evidence exists in That both DBx and WAB categorize
these troops as the
> equivilent of
> billmen. Presumably they have done some historical research as
well.<<
>
> Well, I'd be careful of utilizing DBx and WAB as historical
references.
> The BTGG supplement for WAB (which is an admirable effort in
general) does
> a horrible job of simulating the Menaulatoi, IMHO.
>
> Paul Georgian
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[Paul Georgian]

In a message dated 12/24/2005 4:20:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, cncbump"
_cncbump@..._ (mailto:cncbump@...) writes:

>>I am confused by your statement "Though the menaulatoi clearly was
shorter than a traditional pike the descriptions of it in action
seem to indicated it performed as one in some respects". By the
game definitions wouldn't that define it as an LTS? I think that I
understand your decision to make it a pike for the benefit of two
full ranks fighting at all times, but as a shorter weapon surely you
would agree that there is no foundation for the Menaultoi to be
operating in Warrior terms 4 deep with all ranks fighting.
That was the capability that I thought was mistakenly assigned them<<



If you read McGeer's (I assume you got your description from his Sowing the
Dragon's Teeth) commentary on the menaulatoi in action he clearly refers to it
as a pike in all respects except length. I wouldn't have a problem in
allowing only two ranks of pike armed menaulatoi to fight and probably would
have
written it that way if I had know I could have made such rules exceptions.
Also, I don't believe Warrior or any other set of rules can simulate real
life weaponry with any real historical fidelity. Only a similarity is possible
IMHO. So whether it acted as an LTS, P, HTW, or HCT is a matter of personal
interpretation. If you think they should only fight two ranks deep with P,
then only run them two ranks deep and the problem goes away. BTW, from the
way they are described they should have been equally effective against infantry
but this doesn't seem to have been considered.

Paul G.


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

[Chris Bump]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, PaulByzan@a... wrote:
>
>
McGreer does. But as an example, Siborne describes the British
squares at Waterloo as offering inpenetrable obstacles to the French
Heavy Cav as if armed with Pike. We of course know that they
weren't. My only point, albeit poorly made, is that when dealing
with a reach weapon, length does matter despite how it is being used
or more to the point described as being used. So I think that it
goes a little beyond personal interpretation. As another example, I
have read a couple of sources that describe them as being armed
with "short heavy throwing spears". I assume that was the description
you used to warrent arming them with HTW, because I have not found
any reference to pila or such. I do not believe that HTW is in fact
warranted but rathter that heavy throwing spear was a generic term
applied to weapons other than the the long spear or Javelin. It
certainly seems a bit of a leap in logic that the pila would have
ceased being used around 400 and then reapeared 400 years later with
an army that put so little stock in its infantry arm.

Color me jaded, but I think that the reason that there is no mention
as to the success of Menaultoi against Infantry is because they were
designed as a response to enemy heavy cav and used in that role;
whether they should have been as successful against infantry is open
to speculation.>

Regards and Merry Christmas,
Chris


> If you read McGeer's (I assume you got your description from his
Sowing the
> Dragon's Teeth) commentary on the menaulatoi in action he clearly
refers to it
> as a pike in all respects except length. I wouldn't have a
problem in
> allowing only two ranks of pike armed menaulatoi to fight and
probably would have
> written it that way if I had know I could have made such rules
exceptions.
> Also, I don't believe Warrior or any other set of rules can
simulate real
> life weaponry with any real historical fidelity. Only a
similarity is possible
> IMHO. So whether it acted as an LTS, P, HTW, or HCT is a matter
of personal
> interpretation. If you think they should only fight two ranks
deep with P,
> then only run them two ranks deep and the problem goes away. BTW,
from the
> way they are described they should have been equally effective
against infantry
> but this doesn't seem to have been considered.
>
> Paul G.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>