Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

<< This would tend to take care of elephants behind palisades or mounted knights
charging over them, and other 'hinky' things like that, which are bound to come
up eventually.>>

Well, since no list with elephants has forward zone palisades and mounted K
would be disordered by doing so....

<< Boats are another great example. It would have been much better in my opinion
to allow boats, but state which troops may use them for "amphibious assault", so
to speak.>>

I am not aware of a troop type in a list that can have boats that 'shouldn't' be
using them. Are you?

[Greg Regets]

Now THAT was funny!
----- Original Message -----
From: JonCleaves@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] pallisades redux


Scott also shakes his presents at Christmas...

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

[joncleaves]

<<> I'm talking about which troops on a list may use things
> like palisades, abatis, and most especially boats.>>

Palisades and abatis are terrain. Once placed that's where they are and anyone
can 'use' them, if that is what you mean by 'use'.

If you mean by 'use' which troops can forced march in contact with a forward
zone palisade in order for it to be permitted to be there, if there are troops
we don't feel should be doing this due to history, we will say so in the list.
I am not aware of any DAW list that permits this but has a troop type on the
list that should not be allowed to forced march in contact with a points-bought
temporary fortification.

Boats can be bought for any troops in a list that can have them. If there are
lists out there in the future where the list can have boats but there is no
historical precedent for
certain troops in that list being equipped with boats, we will say so in the
list. I am not aware that this is an issue in any BW or DAW list.

Jon

[Greg Regets]

I'm talking about which troops on a list may use things like palisades, abatis,
and most especially boats.

I don't want to get into possible abuses, cuz I don't want to get called 'Boyd',
~wink~

Please remember, and I know you do, that you guys mostly have Scott to handle
such things at big tournaments - and we don't.

Greg

P.S. Does Scott have a sister that ref's? :-)


----- Original Message -----
From: JonCleaves@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] pallisades redux



<< This would tend to take care of elephants behind palisades or mounted
knights charging over them, and other 'hinky' things like that, which are bound
to come up eventually.>>

Well, since no list with elephants has forward zone palisades and mounted K
would be disordered by doing so....

<< Boats are another great example. It would have been much better in my
opinion to allow boats, but state which troops may use them for "amphibious
assault", so to speak.>>

I am not aware of a troop type in a list that can have boats that 'shouldn't'
be using them. Are you?



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

--- JonCleaves@... wrote:

Well, since no list with elephants has forward zone
> palisades and mounted K would be disordered by doing
> so....




**Actually the Seleucids used a palisade against the
Romans at themopalae according to Bar Kochava in his
book "The Seleucid Army." This is very interesting
reading and Scott, I hope you didn't delete my posting
even though I wrote it! Here's what the quote says on
pages 160, 161, and 162.
"The eastern gate was blocked by low earthworks
with a ditch in front, both extending to the sea(Livy
36.16.3, 18.8: App. Syr. 18(7). The width of the
pass at its narrowest point is estimated to have been
90 m. The rampart gave way to a stone wall the remains
of which can still be seen, which climbed 1800 m up
the hill in the south until it reached an impassable
cliff. A pair of ravines in front of the stone wall
protected it on the north. The wall was designed to
prevent the Romans from outflanking the Seleucid force
if they succeeded in dislodging its light troops
posted on the hill in front of the wall.
According to Appian, Antiochus placed mechanai,
i.e. artillery machines of various types, on the wall
(probably the stone wall, and not the rampart) so that
they could provide 'cover' for the front of the
rampart (App. Syr. 18(7). Special towers were
probably built on the wall to house the machines, and
these, in addition to their fine defensive position,
constituted additional protection against capture.
Nothing is said about the operation of the artillery
in the course of the battle, but then the role of the
snipers on the hill is also passed over in silence.
The battle of Thermopylae thus seems to be the only
case on record in which the Seleucids used artillery
in a field battle. But, in fact, the defensive
character of the engagement and the condition of the
terrain make this battle similar to siege warfare in
which the Hellenistic armies used artillery in the
defence as well."

Two paragraphs down from this we find that Elephants
were not only present, but part of the plan LOL!!!!

"This battle order was designed to provide for
two possibilities: in one case, the artillery, the
'snipers' on the hills, and the lights and
argyraspides in front of the rampart, after breaking
the enemy's onslaught, were to turn immediately to the
offensive and pursue the enemy, with the support of
the cavalry behind the elephants: in the second, if
the Romans succeeded in dispersing the skirmishers and
'peltasts', they would end up in front of the rampart
facing the phalanx with no possibility of outflanking
it, for the two wings would be protected by the
elephants on the sea side and by the wall on the
hillside. The front lines of the phalanx were
stationed on the rampart so that the ditch and the
soldiers' long sarissae would aggravate the
difficulties of approaching the Seleucid centre (App.
Syr. 19(84); Livy 36.18.3)."

In addition to this evidence that there is an army
that had elephants present while using field
fortifications, I would also like to mention that
Pikes are noted to have defended a rampart that had a
ditch. I don't think that Warrior allows Pikes to
defend a stone wall or palisade. Is that correct?
According to Livy and Appian the Seleucids did.
Hmmm... Any thoughts from the HO's?


Kelly Wilkinson
Kindness HO





__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com