Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Hello all,
I was just thinking about form and function in regard to HTW in
Tog and Warrior. It seems to me that the Pilum as a weapon served to
dibilitate enemy warriors by unshielding them. Many other armies get
weapons that are equivicated to the Pilum as HTW such as the Spanish.
I wonder if the spanish all iron spear was meant to do what the Pilum
does? Is there anyone out there who has the smarts to come up with an
x rule that would simulate the pilum such as perhapa unshielding
troops opposed to pilum armed foes and the pilum armed troops going
in with other weapons (Gladius) at shieldless enemy for say "one
round?" This ofcourse would not be the case against Pikes where the
Romans would be pushed back as Livy states. Any interest out there? I
just seem to think that when looking at various HTW types out there,
that weapons like the Francisca and Iberian Spanish iron spears have
a different function than Pila and allowing them to function the same
is somehow unhistorical to my warped way of thinking!! LOL! Anyone
out there care to comment or make suggestions? To the FHE guys, I'm
just throwing this out for discussion since we are blessed with some
very talented and inventive minds on this board!

Kelly Wilkinson

I am of the opinion that reports of the unshielding aspects of the pilum
were greatly exaggerated, or purely ancedotal. The pilum was a heavy
javelin, period. Reports that they weighed down shields, or pinned shields
together should be treated in the same light as 400 yard Turkish archery
ranges or hooks on halberds being used to unhorse knights, with the blade
being used as a can opener. When it happened, it was probably a rarity to
be remarked upon.
The pilum was thrown to kill a guy. It _probably_ had greater penetrating
power than a normal javelin. It _might_ penetrate armor that a javelin
would bounce off or be deflected by. Javelins could stick into shields,
too. Any other effects were just a bonus. Possibly a "primus pilum"
centurion could amuse his fellow soldiers by putting a pilum through several
shields, but the vast majority threw theirs just to hit the bad guys, and
take out one more less that they had to deal with with their swords.
Yes, I know about "weakening the temper" of the steel along the neck, and
breakaway rivets, and all that stuff. I still think that Marcus Quintus
would rather see his pilum sticking in the gizzard of John Gaul than in his
shield.
I will answer in advance all the criticism by those who quote historian
so-and-so about shields being pinned together by saying that that historian
loved a good story.

Ancient wargaming heretic,
John the OFM



> -----Original Message-----
> From: jwilkinson62 [mailto:jwilkinson62@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 3:36 PM
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Pilum group discussion
>
>
> Hello all,
> I was just thinking about form and function in regard to HTW in
> Tog and Warrior. It seems to me that the Pilum as a weapon served to
> dibilitate enemy warriors by unshielding them. Many other armies get
> weapons that are equivicated to the Pilum as HTW such as the Spanish.
> I wonder if the spanish all iron spear was meant to do what the Pilum
> does? Is there anyone out there who has the smarts to come up with an
> x rule that would simulate the pilum such as perhapa unshielding
> troops opposed to pilum armed foes and the pilum armed troops going
> in with other weapons (Gladius) at shieldless enemy for say "one
> round?" This ofcourse would not be the case against Pikes where the
> Romans would be pushed back as Livy states. Any interest out there? I
> just seem to think that when looking at various HTW types out there,
> that weapons like the Francisca and Iberian Spanish iron spears have
> a different function than Pila and allowing them to function the same
> is somehow unhistorical to my warped way of thinking!! LOL! Anyone
> out there care to comment or make suggestions? To the FHE guys, I'm
> just throwing this out for discussion since we are blessed with some
> very talented and inventive minds on this board!
>
> Kelly Wilkinson
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>

In a message dated 7/10/02 2:40:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time, gar@...
writes:

<< Subj: Re: [WarriorRules] Pilum group discussion
Date: 7/10/02 2:40:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: gar@... (Greggory A. Regets)
Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com">
WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com</A>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com

Of course you would want it to hit the man ... and if the C-in-C is
available, he would be the preferred target.

The fact remains that breakable dowels, pop-out rivets and bendable shanks
(perhaps) did exist, and they were made this way for a reason, right?

Greg
>>

Sure. The reason was so it would be uselss if the target attempted to throw
it back, if it did not kill. Easy.
I willing to admit that the ivory tower boffins who designed this contraption
might have had high hopes of pinning shields together. The same design
intent can be found in saw backed bayonets, or bayonets with "blood
channels." I _am_ saying that this rarely happened in reality.
If we had a Way-Back machine, I would wager that Marcus Quintus, on seeing
that his pilum merely pinned John Gaul's shield to his neighbor's, would
think "Damn. I have to fight that bugger now."

John the OFM

[Kelly Wilkinson]

John,
Then are you saying that these weapon types should be missile
weapons? You basically say they are heavy javelins. It seems to me
that Phil Barker had something else in mind given that HTW armed
troops get a +5 verses most infantry types in the first round of
contact. Do you feel that there should be a heavy javelin
classification?

Kelly
"Free Discussion Ho" LOL!

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated Wed, 10 Jul 2002 3:04:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,
johncarroll453 writes:

> I will answer in advance all the criticism by those who quote historian
> so-and-so about shields being pinned together by saying
> that that historian
> loved a good story.
>
> Ancient wargaming heretic,
> John the OFM

I'm wit chue.
Chris

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated Wed, 10 Jul 2002 3:11:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jwilkinson62@... writes:

> John,
> Then are you saying that these weapon types should be missile
> weapons? You basically say they are heavy javelins. It seems to me
> that Phil Barker had something else in mind given that HTW armed
> troops get a +5 verses most infantry types in the first
> round of
> contact. Do you feel that there should be a heavy javelin
> classification?
>
> Kelly
> "Free Discussion Ho" LOL!

Kelly at best they get a +3 vs normal infantry weapons. If you include the Jls
bonus then that is further decreased. ie other foot v MI is x @3. Add the Jls
bonus and it is x@4 HTW is x@5. Seems to be just a better (heavier more
penetrative what ever) javelin ranking.
Chris

I think he might have been calling it +5 becuase in relation to most weapons
it doesn't pay the -2 against LTS/P which are darn common.



-----Original Message-----
From: cncbump@... [mailto:cncbump@...]
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 4:03 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Pilum group discussion


In a message dated Wed, 10 Jul 2002 3:11:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jwilkinson62@... writes:

> John,
> Then are you saying that these weapon types should be missile
> weapons? You basically say they are heavy javelins. It seems to me
> that Phil Barker had something else in mind given that HTW armed
> troops get a +5 verses most infantry types in the first
> round of
> contact. Do you feel that there should be a heavy javelin
> classification?
>
> Kelly
> "Free Discussion Ho" LOL!

Kelly at best they get a +3 vs normal infantry weapons. If you include the
Jls bonus then that is further decreased. ie other foot v MI is x @3. Add
the Jls bonus and it is x@4 HTW is x@5. Seems to be just a better (heavier
more penetrative what ever) javelin ranking.
Chris




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/

[Greg Regets]

Of course you would want it to hit the man ... and if the C-in-C is available,
he would be the preferred target.

The fact remains that breakable dowels, pop-out rivets and bendable shanks
(perhaps) did exist, and they were made this way for a reason, right?

Greg
----- Original Message -----
From: cncbump@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Pilum group discussion


In a message dated Wed, 10 Jul 2002 3:04:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,
johncarroll453 writes:

> I will answer in advance all the criticism by those who quote historian
> so-and-so about shields being pinned together by saying
> that that historian
> loved a good story.
>
> Ancient wargaming heretic,
> John the OFM

I'm wit chue.
Chris



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]

Chris,
Good point! Do you think that a pilum should be considered in
the same category as a Francisca or whatever it is the Inca's use
etc. . . !? I'm just curious as usual about what others think!

Kelly

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Mr Hovey makes an excellent point here. For some arcane reason, HTW
doesn't take the -2 in hand to hand verses P or LTS and Roman
historians clearly point out that the Phalanx can only be defeated by
superior maneuver. So why the pass on taking the minus 2 from Pikes
and long spears if the Romans always were the ones being pushed back
initially? Food for thought.

Kelly

[Greg Regets]

Good points John!

G
----- Original Message -----
From: johncarroll453@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 7:07 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Pilum group discussion


In a message dated 7/10/02 2:40:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time, gar@...
writes:

<< Subj: Re: [WarriorRules] Pilum group discussion
Date: 7/10/02 2:40:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: gar@... (Greggory A. Regets)
Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com">
WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com</A>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com

Of course you would want it to hit the man ... and if the C-in-C is
available, he would be the preferred target.

The fact remains that breakable dowels, pop-out rivets and bendable shanks
(perhaps) did exist, and they were made this way for a reason, right?

Greg
>>

Sure. The reason was so it would be uselss if the target attempted to throw
it back, if it did not kill. Easy.
I willing to admit that the ivory tower boffins who designed this contraption
might have had high hopes of pinning shields together. The same design
intent can be found in saw backed bayonets, or bayonets with "blood
channels." I _am_ saying that this rarely happened in reality.
If we had a Way-Back machine, I would wager that Marcus Quintus, on seeing
that his pilum merely pinned John Gaul's shield to his neighbor's, would
think "Damn. I have to fight that bugger now."

John the OFM


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]

'Cos otherwise they tend to lose!
:-)

Adam

"jwilkinson62" <jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> Mr Hovey makes an excellent point here. For some arcane reason, HTW
> doesn't take the -2 in hand to hand verses P or LTS and Roman
> historians clearly point out that the Phalanx can only be defeated
by
> superior maneuver. So why the pass on taking the minus 2 from Pikes
> and long spears if the Romans always were the ones being pushed
back
> initially? Food for thought.
>
> Kelly