Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Doug]

>
>** I think this is a serious problem for pikes - if part of a line, for
>example at the end, they are unable to turn 90 degrees. This is
>true also just by
>have a unit adjacent to it.
>mark mallard

Can you show me a historical user of Pikes that could turn 90 degrees
other than by wheeling on a corner?

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 23/03/2005 00:41:24 GMT Standard Time,
rockd@... writes:

>
>** I think this is a serious problem for pikes - if part of a line, for
>example at the end, they are unable to turn 90 degrees. This is
>true also just by
>have a unit adjacent to it.
>mark mallard

Can you show me a historical user of Pikes that could turn 90 degrees
other than by wheeling on a corner?




** I would assume that while holding the pike aloft the 90 degree turn would
be simplicity itself with no change to the footprint.

I have seen no evidence to refute this.

mark mallard


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

Pikes face easily to either flank or rear. Drill manuals from the 16th
century indicate the maneuver; there's no reason to believe it couldn't
have been done in the ancient world. More importantly, Hoplites
practiced maneuvering to the flank and rear, and Xenophon's Anabasis
contains a beautiful example of a phalanx changeing front to the left
and chargeing (already quoted on this list in the past). I'd really
have to doubt whether this technique was lost between 380 BC and the
first use of the pike; the difference between a 12 foot spear and 18
foot pike is not as great as some folks seem to think. The 18 foot pike
is more of a pain to carry for a long time...
My CG mentor says that there are 3 untranslated period drill
manuals from the Hellenic period. Anyone know anything about these?
Woulod they be worth translating (silly question...)

Chris C.

>
>

[Chris Bump]

I can't find the illustration you speak of Chris. Maybe my copy of
the translation doesn't have all of the original illustrations.

But your logic is flawed for a number or reasons. The ancient
phalanx could not make facing movements and almost assuredly did not
practice in the art of facing to the rear. There are multiple
reasons to believe it could not have been done in the ancient world.

The difference between a 12 foot spear and 18 foot pike is actually
quite significant. The spear of the hoplite was between 6.5 ft and
10ft at the outside. The Sarissa was between 14 and 18 ft. The
difference is not just in double the length, but a pike must by
necessity be of a broader more firm wood than the ash favored by the
Greeks. So the weight difference is more likely exponential than
linear multiplication. Further, that extra lenght and weight are
considerably more unwieldy. You can see this with the necessity of
the phalangite having to sling his shield during battle while the
hoplite could wield his weapon overhead and use his left arm for
holding the heavy hoplon.

The strenth of the Greek phalanx depended upon the skill/ armor/
experience etc of the front ranks and the inertia of the rear ranks.
None of these dependencies are possible with an about face maneuver.
There may have been practice with to the rear movements (although I
can find no examples with the quick research I've done since this
line started) but if so they shoud be an entire maneuver, not a quick
about face and move at full speed. The phalanx by all references
I've read in my life was by definition INFLEXIBLE.

The length and depth of the Macedonian and successor phalanx makes
this maneuver even more impossible. Furthermore some armies had
longer pikes to the rear and shorter to the front. A unit armed as
such that makes a facing movement is either totally useless because
its longest weapons, not to mention its least armored/experienced/
skilled warriors are now to the front or if they make a facing
movement are far less efficient because now each file has exactly the
same length weapon and each rank has different length weapons.

We do not see the minuet of maneuvers that we perform on the Warrior
table until the mid 18th century. The highly drilled armies of
Marlborough and Tallard wheeled in battle. Their drill does not
involve facing movements. Their battalions were consideably smaller
adn far more professional to boot.

No, I am with Doug on this one. I would very much like to be
referred to sources that have any ancient formations making facing
movements, even more so any with a phalanx.

I suspect that Barker had allowed such inaccuracies and to change
that would dramatically change the play of our communal game and as
such was not seriously considered.

My $.02.
Chris





--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Christian and Sarah
<cgc.sjw@s...> wrote:
>
> Pikes face easily to either flank or rear. Drill manuals from the
16th
> century indicate the maneuver; there's no reason to believe it
couldn't
> have been done in the ancient world. More importantly, Hoplites
> practiced maneuvering to the flank and rear, and Xenophon's
Anabasis
> contains a beautiful example of a phalanx changeing front to the
left
> and chargeing (already quoted on this list in the past). I'd
really
> have to doubt whether this technique was lost between 380 BC and
the
> first use of the pike; the difference between a 12 foot spear and
18
> foot pike is not as great as some folks seem to think. The 18 foot
pike
> is more of a pain to carry for a long time...
> My CG mentor says that there are 3 untranslated period drill
> manuals from the Hellenic period. Anyone know anything about
these?
> Woulod they be worth translating (silly question...)
>
> Chris C.
>
> >
> >

[joncleaves]

<<I suspect that Barker had allowed such inaccuracies and to change
that would dramatically change the play of our communal game and as
such was not seriously considered.>>

Just for the record, we are satisfied we have this right. Christian is also
right that we have discussed this at length before, which is the primary reason
why we do not plan to go into depth on this issue again.

And yes, I have held and moved with an 18-foot pike. You do indeed fight with
it completely differently than you do a hoplite's spear, but it does not prevent
one from making a facing movement.

J



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

[Chris Bump]

How trite. The lenght of a pike did not keep the Tercios from making facing
movements either, yet they did not have such a maneuver in their drill. But
both points are also irrelevant to whether or not a Macedonian phalanx could or
actually did or even drilled at making such movements.

And you of all people should know better than making such a foible. You on more
than one occassion have dismissed others who tried to use their experiences with
SCA or such as a basis for their various arguments on this page.
Chris

>
> From: JonCleaves@...
> Date: 2005/03/23 Wed PM 04:04:54 GMT
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: when good players go wrong- pikes turning 90
deg
>
>


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

[joncleaves]

>
> And you of all people should know better than making such a
foible. You on more than one occassion have dismissed others who
tried to use their experiences with SCA or such as a basis for their
various arguments on this page.>>

You'll need to find such a message. We use personal and reenactor's
experience with weapon systems and gear all the time. Stirrups and
shields among them...

Again, we're fine with regular P-armed troops and the movement
rules. Not sure what the sense is to beating this horse again, but
you are certainly free to.

One thing though - please, please remember that disagreement is not
disrespect. We hear you. We understand what you are saying. We
like you just fine. We just don't agree.

J

[Chris Bump]

Actually sir you are the one who chimed in with said club. Doug asked a
question. Chris responded. I responded to Chris' note. No one proposed that
you change your mind nor that the rules should be changed.

You then let all know that you were satisfied with the rule as written. I
provided my suspicion as to why things are as they are but certainly did not
make any comments as to needing the rules changed.

As to your comment about using reenactors experiences reference stirrups I will
refrain from proclaiming my opinions on all the various synonyms for bovine
droppings. Scott, in so many words, said that stirrups were essentially for
convenience and offered a negligible difference to the rider in battle. You
might observe this to be the case in a simulation where at most the horse will
be in a mild trot. In simulations they cannot do any more than that. But since
we KNOW that polo players cannot play without stirrups and not be at a
monumental disadvantage and we also know that polo was invented as a practice
for war it is not hard to draw the conclusion about what stirrups offer a rider
over one who does not have them.

I understand your Macro-time vs micro time philosophy with the game and mildly
accept it. Further I have no desire to go in circles again. And given the
sheer number of posts in the archives I have no intent of looking through them
to prove a meaningless point. I am also comfortable in my recollections and
those I know who took umbridge with your points at the time you posted such.
Chris

>
> From: "Jon" <JonCleaves@...>
> Date: 2005/03/23 Wed PM 04:25:28 GMT
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: when good players go wrong- pikes turning 90 deg
>
>


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

[Steve Hollowell]

I am an amateur historian at best, but...

When I entered military service, one of the first things I learned was how to
march, face left and face right. It has been an amazing benefit to the rest of
my life. Previsouly, I could only turn at a 45 degree angle. It made taking
corners really tough. Thanks to the good ole US Army, I can now turn corners
with relative ease.

cncbump@... wrote:

How trite. The lenght of a pike did not keep the Tercios from making facing
movements either, yet they did not have such a maneuver in their drill. But both
points are also irrelevant to whether or not a Macedonian phalanx could or
actually did or even drilled at making such movements.

And you of all people should know better than making such a foible. You on more
than one occassion have dismissed others who tried to use their experiences with
SCA or such as a basis for their various arguments on this page.
Chris

>
> From: JonCleaves@...
> Date: 2005/03/23 Wed PM 04:04:54 GMT
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: when good players go wrong- pikes turning 90
deg
>
>


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




Yahoo! Groups Links









---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!

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

[joncleaves]

Chris

I only chimed in to make sure the record is straight that we are
happy with the rule and do not at all see it as a case of being
inaccurate but we'll leave it there because change is hard. I'll
pretty much always chime in when someone makes a claim about FHE
policy or procedures that is inaccurate. If nothing else it helps
reduce the amount of offline mail I get...lol

I have no problem with *you* believing we got something wrong -
that's your perogative. I just want to make sure that no one thinks
we think we got it wrong but are just leaving it there.

Things would be soooo much easier if folks just stated their own
opinions and did not try to make claims related to why things are
the way they are or why we make the decisions we make. That is our
business and yes, I'll have to correct the record on those issues.

If you just said, 'I disagree with the representation of pike
maneuvers in Warrior' or some such, there would be no need for any
of us to say anything and folks could just join the thread as they
saw fit.

Please?

Jon

[Doug]

Good list. I was mainly thinking about the positions of the file
leaders and file closers.

>But your logic is flawed for a number or reasons. The ancient
>phalanx could not make facing movements and almost assuredly did not
>practice in the art of facing to the rear. There are multiple
>reasons to believe it could not have been done in the ancient world.

[Chris Bump]

And I agree that your normally armed foot soldier could possibly do
the same.
Of course you never had to perform the basic column right, column
left or to the right march in the din of combat. Good thing I
suppose given your difficulties prior to entering the military.

But do you recall, how important it was when you were practicing
drill and marching at shoulder arms that you keep your weapon at the
desired angle? Besides the obvious asthetic reasons why do you
suppose that your sergeants wanted your weapons at a specific range
of angles off of your torso? What's more imagine marching at trail
arms and making these facing movements. In today's armies we drill
at arms length from each soldier to our front, rear and side. Not so
in ancient Greece. So could all the benefit you gained from your
time in the army help you march shoulder to shoulder at trail arms?

What of with a pike? Ever carried a pike for any distance? You
cannot carry it at something like port arms ie straight up for any
long distance, just too heavy and too unwieldy. Furthermore you
cannot adjust your pike in a deep formation without bumping your
neighbors' This vibrates all the way down to the carrier and creats
considerable angst. Gravity necessitates that it be carried at an
angle for any distance. So either over the shoulder or at an angle
in the direction in which you are walking or at trail arms. Two of
those options are not where you want to be as you enter the fray.

Doing a facing movement en masse with pikes at an angle is just a non-
starter. And if you raise your pikes upright to make a facing
movement you run the risk of the enemy being upon you.

I do appreciate your effort at humor.
Chris

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Steven Hollowell
<sholl202000@y...> wrote:
> I am an amateur historian at best, but...
>
> When I entered military service, one of the first things I learned
was how to march, face left and face right. It has been an amazing
benefit to the rest of my life. Previsouly, I could only turn at a 45
degree angle. It made taking corners really tough. Thanks to the good
ole US Army, I can now turn corners with relative ease.
>
> cncbump@v... wrote:
>
> How trite. The lenght of a pike did not keep the Tercios from
making facing movements either, yet they did not have such a maneuver
in their drill. But both points are also irrelevant to whether or not
a Macedonian phalanx could or actually did or even drilled at making
such movements.
>
> And you of all people should know better than making such a foible.
You on more than one occassion have dismissed others who tried to use
their experiences with SCA or such as a basis for their various
arguments on this page.
> Chris
>
> >
> > From: JonCleaves@a...
> > Date: 2005/03/23 Wed PM 04:04:54 GMT
> > To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: when good players go wrong- pikes
turning 90 deg
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]