Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Greg Regets]

Scott and I must have our stars aligned today.

His assessment of the 2HCT issue is right on in my opinion. Most of the
historical examples of these guys doing very well apply to troops that would be
classified as EHI, fighting against MI or HI armed with 2HCW. Just because
players don't buy them that way because of fatigue, doesn't change the history.
They really should try these guys. The fatigue isn't really as big an issue on
the battlefield as it is on paper.

8,REG,C,EHI,2HCT,Sh
vs.
8,REG,B,HI,2HCW,Sh

The 2HCT guys are at a 6 on contact, doing 40
The 2HCW guys are at a 4 on contact doing 24

Both disorder, but note that the 2HCT guys have made up the fatigue for
movement. Next bound;

The 2HCT guys are at 5, doing 32
The 2HCW guys are at 2, doing 16

----------

Halbards busting up steady pikes? Show me!
Halbards beating mounted SHK's? Show me!

----------

My best solution to 2HCT would be to make the restrictions for mounted to charge
them (those 2HCT of good quality), the same as steady P/LTS, meaning only attack
orders. This would let you do what they did historically, use these guys to
bolster artillery and longbowmen (in the case of Burgundians/English). This
would mean if you deploy properly (meaning historically, what a concept) mounted
commands coming in on you would not be allowed to fly in on your halbards,
without also facing artillery and/or longbowmen fire. Think about how awesome
these guys would be counter-attacking an enemy tht has been softened up by your
archers or artillery. The enemy will take the minus one, making getting 2x much
easier, and you will usually do 3CPF unless charging huge units.

I like 2HCT. Buy just a few small units. Up the armor to its full potential.
Deploy them teamed with things that allow mutual support, and use them to
counter-attack. With my KofSt.John, my halbards almost always get a break.
Several guys on this site will speak to that truth.

Greg


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

> Halbards busting up steady pikes? Show me!
> Halbards beating mounted SHK's? Show me!

I was just reading the other day how the helberd was
used in combat. I think is was MHQ, but might be
wrong. In any event. the halberd gained prominence
as an anti mounted weapon first, evolving from simpler
forms mainly because it gave reach and could be used
individually. the fact that it is a polearm means it
was cheaper to manufactur, thus cheaper to buy, so it
would naturally gain importance within the lower
ranks. the Swiss used it to quite good effect against
mounted, but usually from ambush. That the halberd
eventually gave way to the pike may have more to do
with training and conveniance to anything intrisic.
Pikes by this time were not highly mobile as
Macedonian taxis. They fought as a dense mass that
occupied feild as much as anything else. almost a
mobile terrain peice to funnel opposing mounted into
the mouths of friendly knights or cannon. Today we
use "tactical" wire to do the same thing on the
battlefield. that halberds were individual weapons
denotes higher skill which means higher pay. that
they were vulnerable to mounted remains contriversial.
If anything, they began to loose favor with the
widespread adoption of the battlesword (hand and a
half) and the twohanded sword.

The pike's use by Macedonians was not incredibly
differnt than the lengthening of Theban spears, yet
with a change of opponants to Persia the pike became
unstoppable by regular Persian foot.


> My best solution to 2HCT would be to make the
> restrictions for mounted to charge them (those 2HCT
> of good quality), the same as steady P/LTS, meaning
> only attack orders. This would let you do what they
> did historically, use these guys to bolster
> artillery and longbowmen (in the case of
> Burgundians/English). This would mean if you deploy
> properly (meaning historically, what a concept)
> mounted commands coming in on you would not be
> allowed to fly in on your halbards, without also
> facing artillery and/or longbowmen fire. Think about
> how awesome these guys would be counter-attacking an
> enemy tht has been softened up by your archers or
> artillery. The enemy will take the minus one, making
> getting 2x much easier, and you will usually do 3CPF
> unless charging huge units.
>
> I like 2HCT. Buy just a few small units. Up the
> armor to its full potential. Deploy them teamed with
> things that allow mutual support, and use them to
> counter-attack. With my KofSt.John, my halbards
> almost always get a break. Several guys on this site
> will speak to that truth.
> Greg

I've always been a sucker for 2HCT. I'd like to see
them just not get shot to peices before getting a
chance to charge. I'm working on financing a
Burgundian FW army. And I plan on doing exactly as
you've noted, buy letting them play only near
supporting archers. I'll let the Pike stand alone to
help the SHK.

boyd

=====
Wake up and smell the Assyrians

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.yahoo.com

[Tom McMillan]

> Halbards busting up steady pikes? Show me!

Flodden. They weren't pikes, they were bills, which, while maybe better at
dismounting horsemen, would be worse at chopping up pikes. The famous line is
they 'disappointed the pikes of their blades ' or something, and I never
figured out how you could chop through a moving, unanchored pike with an
axe-head, but in any case the bills certainly prevailed.



> Halbards beating mounted SHK's? Show me!

Arbedo. Only the Milanese didn't even try to charge the Swiss halberdiers
with their mounted SHK, they dismounted and attacked with shortened lances
instead, figuring this would give them a better chance.

[scott holder]

I've done some more work on 2HCT, keeping in mind that I still lean
toward this being a "list specific" issue rather than an instititutional
one. Whatever, here's an interesting link:

http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/paradoxes.html

The piece was written in 1599 but much of it would apply to the late
medieval period we're discussing. Go to the link and simply search for
"halberd" in the page to get to the pertinent sections.

Scott
Halberd Ho

Afternoon all,

Question, the 2HCT under "Troops Entitled To Fight" PG-67/9.22/9.3 is
not clear to me. I believe troops using this weapon should fight all
figures in the first rank. However it is not clearly stated as
such. I also assume the second rank does not fight. Can someone
clarify this for me.

Now second question. The English Longbow are not allowed to fire and
fight from the second rank behind English 2HCT troops? Is this
accurate. As we know by the War of Roses this was a standard tactic.
Page 65 "Shooting By Ranks" Pg 67 "Troops Entitled To Fight" for
reference.

Third and last question. Mounted English Longbow has a mounted range
in 8.6 page 64, yet under 8.7 Pg 65 "Shooting by Ranks over another
body does not state mounted longbows, but mounted bows. Should we
assume that mounted bows includes all mounted bows no matter the type
of bow?


Thanks in advance for your thoughts on this.

Your friend,

Jack Young.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/20/2003 1:30:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,
captainjack75040@... writes:

> Afternoon all,
>
> Question, the 2HCT under "Troops Entitled To Fight" PG-67/9.22/9.3 is
> not clear to me. I believe troops using this weapon should fight all
> figures in the first rank. However it is not clearly stated as
> such. I also assume the second rank does not fight. Can someone
> clarify this for me. >>

9.2 states: "All armed figures of an element or part element in contact with an
enemy to its front fight as front rank figures .."

So that takes care of a front rank of 2HCT.

The second rank of such doesn't fight without a list rule. See 9.22 which does
not list 2HCT and which says: "All other figures and models and all E class
fight only if in a front rank."

> Now second question. The English Longbow are not allowed to fire and > fight
from the second rank behind English 2HCT troops? >>

A front rank armed ONLY with 2HCT and not with LB? Then true as a LB unit can
only have LB firing from the second rank if the front rank is also armed with
LB.

<<Is this > accurate. As we know by the War of Roses this was a standard
tactic.>>

Don't think we're talking the same troop type here, but Scott "Feudal Warrior"
Holder will look into this for us.

> Third and last question. Mounted English Longbow has a mounted range
> in 8.6 page 64, yet under 8.7 Pg 65 "Shooting by Ranks over another
> body does not state mounted longbows, but mounted bows. Should we
> assume that mounted bows includes all mounted bows no
> matter the type
> of bow?>>

No you should not make that assumption. And note that mounted INFANTRY (6.62)
cannot shoot as they didn't fight mounted, only moved around the battlefield
that way.

Jon

[scott holder]

However it is not clearly stated as
such. I also assume the second rank does not fight. Can someone
clarify this for me.

>I'll let Jon reply to this because if I did, he'd slap my wrists with a ruler
like a nun.

Now second question. The English Longbow are not allowed to fire and
fight from the second rank behind English 2HCT troops? Is this
accurate. As we know by the War of Roses this was a standard tactic.
Page 65 "Shooting By Ranks" Pg 67 "Troops Entitled To Fight" for
reference.

>That interpretation is open for serious debate and has been done so by 2
generations of 100 Years War/WOTR scholars. Depending on which academic and
which decade you read, you will get a different answer. The prevailing 90s
opinion, as outlined by Kelly DeVries (probably one of the best known American
medieval warfare scholars) points out that the available sources just don't
specify at the level of detail we'd want in order to make some definitive
conclusions. However, said sources imply that such an "overhead fire" sequence
did NOT take place. There is one specific exception to this which I just don't
recall off the top of my head.

>Before I go any further, we need to make sure we're making a distinction
between longbowmen and men-at-arms. The former is pretty straightforward
although we can quibble over exact armament (bucklers, swords, big honking
swords, big spikey mauls, etc). The latter can have two meanings, one mounted,
one not. Mounted men-at-arms are what we like to generically call knights. In
this period they'd all be SHK with lances while riding horseys. However,
dismounted foot soldiers armed with any variety of what we classify as 2HCT are
also often generically called "men-at-arms".

>So, English tactics in the 100 Years War was that the men-at-arms (dismounted)
fought together, alone. Longbowmen fought together, alone. With the one
exception I mentioned, the prevailing 90s academic opinion is that at battles
like Crecy, Poiters, (I'll look up Agincourt particulars later), the men-at-arms
formed up in the center with longbowmen on the flanks jutting out forward at an
angle. Don't believe any of the "hearce" wedge stuff you'll read in 80s and
prior histories. There is some debate over the exact meaning and context of
that phrase but I believe DeVries does a good job explaining why it's been
interpreted the way it has and how that interpretation was incorrect. But, it
appears that there wasn't any line of longbowmen sitting *behind* the
men-at-arms shooting overhead. In fact, even in an 80s academic environment,
there were no suggestions that the units "mixed" in what we would recognize as a
mixed-armed unit.

>This tactic carried over into the WOTR. You see English men-at-arms attacking
other men-at-arms formations, there is scant evidence (heh heh, unless someone
would like to toss some out here) suggesting such formations were of mixed troop
types in a Warrior context. So, that's the primary reason the rule exists the
way it does.

>Note the X rule on the web site regarding how 2HCT can fight. There are also
some list rules in draft form in Feudal Warrior aiming at the same thing. The
whole issue that I've looked long and hard at over the last year revolves
precisely around how late medieval "fighting systems" were evolving. In many
instances is the case of the tail chasing the head. Gunpowder resolved
everything for the next 500 years:) But now it's time for a quick review of
what I'm discussing.

>Going into the 14th Century, the mounted knight was considered the preeminent
"weapon" on the medieval battlefied. Expensive to raise and maintain, they
nontheless had become, in some ways, the apotheosis of earlier Norman milites.
Several things would conspire to bring about the obsolescence of the knight
which was then rendered totally obsolete with the effective widespread infantry
use of gunpowder. First, enemies of kingdoms whose militaries were built around
the "knightly" culture, in this example Scotland and the lowland Flemish
city-states, simply could not compete with the English, French, and Germans who
had, in effect, a 300 year head start on perfecting the system. So, they
developed a counter using what they had at hand, lotsa grubby infantry. So, by
making effective use of terrain, taking advantage of their opponent's general
narrowmindedness when it came to tactical flair, the Scots beat the English
twice when knights flung themselves at Scottish formations armed (longish spears
or pikes) to defeat knight charges, positioned (flanks protected by terrain) to
defeat knight charges and enhanced (holes, mud, pits) to defeat knight charges.
The Flemish would do the exact same thing 3 times during the first two decades
of the 14th Century, only to even more arrogant, feudal-minded Frenchmen.

>Second, and not really part of this systems discussion, the Black Death changed
the entire feudal economic and social landscape in western Europe. Kingdoms
simply couldn't "afford" the "knightly culture" they once had. For that matter,
the knights couldn't afford it since they required "X" amount of essentially
serfed labor to support them. Everybody was dead so the market for human
capital went way upward which, in some ways, drove the knight (or his "class"
for lack of a better phrase) out of bidness.

>The English responded in a number of ways and were much more flexible than the
French during this era. For one, they abandoned the feudal call-up and feudal
obligations. Instead, they simply paid people to fight. Ian Heath's book has a
great summary on the indenture system (although his tactical section outlining
the wedging "hearces" is very dated). This resulted in less reliance on feudal
knights who, in the English context, were worthless against one of their two
biggest foes of the time, the Scots. Moreoever, the English could see what
Scottish formations would do against the cream of feudal knights. So, when they
returned to France, they did so with a mindset of aiming to defeat France's
knightly formations. However, they would do so with an interesting twist.

>The English learned that the best way to beat up Scottish formations was to
shoot em to death, then move in with the *dismounted* knights (ie men-at-arms,
now well armed and wielding some big 2HCT weapon) to mop up. Take what the
Scots did, muddle up the approach to the infantry formations, and wah lah, the
English embark on the 100 Years War with two main weapons, men-at-arms and
longbowmen who, when situated correctly, could easily beat the crap outta the
French, again, this would be highlighted at Crecy and Poiters.

>Having said all of this, it was very clear to everyone that the men-at-arms
(used here in the generic sense to mean some infantry schmoe armed with a 2HCT
weapon who may or may not have been heavily armored) were still no match for a
determined cav charge (the Swiss learned this early on) when standing alone, in
the open and no support. Hence, English tactical "doctrine" (informal tho it
might have been) depended heavily on missile fire, terrain, and some type of
local obstacle (be it a muddy field, pits, stakes, etc) to soften up and break
up the incoming cavalry charge. Then the knights were no match for the 2HCT
weapons which were specifically designed to cleave thru armor, head to toe.

>The Swiss would adopt yet another variation of this with their combined
pike/halberd formations. The pikes would serve the same function as the older
Scottish formations in stopping a determined cav charge, then the halberds would
move thru to finish up the job. The Swiss developed the unit C&C to do this.
You'll see that also evolve into the Renaissance with Spanish formations.

>Hopefully everybody can see that tactical systems in question that grew out of
the early 14th century were designed to do one thing really really well, kill
enemy cav. The reason the English stuck with 2HCT/armored infantry for so long
is because of their own civil wars and facing opponents who had abundant missile
troops. Heavily armored men-at-arms could slog forward (all things being equal)
in the face of determined longbow fire, still close with the opposing formation,
and hack the crap out of it. They knew that charging knights into a mass of
longbowmen wasn't gonna work and sitting around trading shots all day long with
opposing longbow formations didn't really have the initiative needed to
decisively win battles. Therefore, they had supporting missile troops well,
support the attacking men-at-arms. Gunpowder was beginning to make itself
effectively felt by now and that changed things as well but we won't see any
real wholescale English shift until the aftermath of Flodden Field in 1513 which
showed how good artillery handling could whack the hell outta massed infantry
formations....unless you had something to counter the artillery (your own) or
take it out early (cav coming in from a flank).

>Those tactical systems on the Continent weren't dealing with this so much since
the French amazingly stuck with a "knightly culture" in one form or another
until the 1450s and the Germans were little different, despite the social and
economic factors working against said culture. The Italian Condotta captains
also were similar. And to be honest, since most opposition wasn't as determined
as the Swiss or the English, some type of mounted "knight" still had a
tremendous impact on the battlefield. Had the Swiss and English been mortal
enemies for the better part of the 14-15th centuries, chances are you would have
seen different tactical systems develop to fight each other. Perhaps a "mixed
armed" formation as the one outlined in the original post. And then lemme toss
out the Hussites and the whole usage of battlefield mobile laagers. Again,
another tactical development designed by people with no money and/or training to
be able to play with the big knightly boys on your local battlefield.

>As should be clear by now, this development centered around beating up on
knights. What it didn't center around was trying to beat up on each other, ie,
if the Hussites and English were neighbors, just like the English/Swiss example
above.

>Whew. Basically, there is no good evidence to support a "second rank" of LB
being able to fire overhead of a front rank of 2HCTers. As I'm getting ready to
work on the WOTR list, I'll reexamine this quite closely but I'm fairly
comforatable at the moment with all the stuff I've said about the 14th Century
since that's much of what I've been studying for the last 6 months.

[Ed Forbes]

Great workup Scott. Very enjoyable to read.

Ed Forbes

________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com

[scott holder]

Great workup Scott. Very enjoyable to read.

>Thank Bill. He went literally crazy on the notes. Now I *love* notes (as
everyone could tell in Holy Warrior which, if you haven't purchased yet.......)
and wish we could do to everything else what we (Bill) did for NWW. Of course
those 8 lists took 5 months to complete from first draft to publication (Bill
had them in late October in draft form). My originals were more of what you'd
see in HW.

>I think the fact that we weren't confined by a set paper limit, and thus,
money, it was an opportunity for two history majors with a zeal for the period
to bring it in useable detail to the wargamer.

>In fact, the review staff was split on this. Our one very critical reviewer
wasn't all that impressed with the approach. Two others, and here's the irony,
who are more gaming oriented rather than history oriented, liked the extensive
notes approach. So go figure.

Scott,

Thanks for sharing your research with us. It was very informatived.

Your friend,

Jack Young


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Holder, Scott"
<Scott.Holder@f...> wrote:
> However it is not clearly stated as
> such. I also assume the second rank does not fight. Can someone
> clarify this for me.
>
> >I'll let Jon reply to this because if I did, he'd slap my wrists
with a ruler like a nun.
>
> Now second question. The English Longbow are not allowed to fire
and
> fight from the second rank behind English 2HCT troops? Is this
> accurate. As we know by the War of Roses this was a standard
tactic.
> Page 65 "Shooting By Ranks" Pg 67 "Troops Entitled To Fight" for
> reference.
>
> >That interpretation is open for serious debate and has been done
so by 2 generations of 100 Years War/WOTR scholars. Depending on
which academic and which decade you read, you will get a different
answer. The prevailing 90s opinion, as outlined by Kelly DeVries
(probably one of the best known American medieval warfare scholars)
points out that the available sources just don't specify at the level
of detail we'd want in order to make some definitive conclusions.
However, said sources imply that such an "overhead fire" sequence did
NOT take place. There is one specific exception to this which I just
don't recall off the top of my head.
>
> >Before I go any further, we need to make sure we're making a
distinction between longbowmen and men-at-arms. The former is pretty
straightforward although we can quibble over exact armament
(bucklers, swords, big honking swords, big spikey mauls, etc). The
latter can have two meanings, one mounted, one not. Mounted men-at-
arms are what we like to generically call knights. In this period
they'd all be SHK with lances while riding horseys. However,
dismounted foot soldiers armed with any variety of what we classify
as 2HCT are also often generically called "men-at-arms".
>
> >So, English tactics in the 100 Years War was that the men-at-arms
(dismounted) fought together, alone. Longbowmen fought together,
alone. With the one exception I mentioned, the prevailing 90s
academic opinion is that at battles like Crecy, Poiters, (I'll look
up Agincourt particulars later), the men-at-arms formed up in the
center with longbowmen on the flanks jutting out forward at an
angle. Don't believe any of the "hearce" wedge stuff you'll read in
80s and prior histories. There is some debate over the exact meaning
and context of that phrase but I believe DeVries does a good job
explaining why it's been interpreted the way it has and how that
interpretation was incorrect. But, it appears that there wasn't any
line of longbowmen sitting *behind* the men-at-arms shooting
overhead. In fact, even in an 80s academic environment, there were
no suggestions that the units "mixed" in what we would recognize as a
mixed-armed unit.
>
> >This tactic carried over into the WOTR. You see English men-at-
arms attacking other men-at-arms formations, there is scant evidence
(heh heh, unless someone would like to toss some out here) suggesting
such formations were of mixed troop types in a Warrior context. So,
that's the primary reason the rule exists the way it does.
>
> >Note the X rule on the web site regarding how 2HCT can fight.
There are also some list rules in draft form in Feudal Warrior aiming
at the same thing. The whole issue that I've looked long and hard at
over the last year revolves precisely around how late
medieval "fighting systems" were evolving. In many instances is the
case of the tail chasing the head. Gunpowder resolved everything for
the next 500 years:) But now it's time for a quick review of
what I'm discussing.
>
> >Going into the 14th Century, the mounted knight was considered the
preeminent "weapon" on the medieval battlefied. Expensive to raise
and maintain, they nontheless had become, in some ways, the
apotheosis of earlier Norman milites. Several things would conspire
to bring about the obsolescence of the knight which was then rendered
totally obsolete with the effective widespread infantry use of
gunpowder. First, enemies of kingdoms whose militaries were built
around the "knightly" culture, in this example Scotland and the
lowland Flemish city-states, simply could not compete with the
English, French, and Germans who had, in effect, a 300 year head
start on perfecting the system. So, they developed a counter using
what they had at hand, lotsa grubby infantry. So, by making
effective use of terrain, taking advantage of their opponent's
general narrowmindedness when it came to tactical flair, the Scots
beat the English twice when knights flung themselves at Scottish
formations armed (longish spears or pikes) to defeat knight charges,
positioned (flanks protected by terrain) to defeat knight charges and
enhanced (holes, mud, pits) to defeat knight charges. The Flemish
would do the exact same thing 3 times during the first two decades of
the 14th Century, only to even more arrogant, feudal-minded
Frenchmen.
>
> >Second, and not really part of this systems discussion, the Black
Death changed the entire feudal economic and social landscape in
western Europe. Kingdoms simply couldn't "afford" the "knightly
culture" they once had. For that matter, the knights couldn't afford
it since they required "X" amount of essentially serfed labor to
support them. Everybody was dead so the market for human capital
went way upward which, in some ways, drove the knight (or his "class"
for lack of a better phrase) out of bidness.
>
> >The English responded in a number of ways and were much more
flexible than the French during this era. For one, they abandoned
the feudal call-up and feudal obligations. Instead, they simply paid
people to fight. Ian Heath's book has a great summary on the
indenture system (although his tactical section outlining the
wedging "hearces" is very dated). This resulted in less reliance on
feudal knights who, in the English context, were worthless against
one of their two biggest foes of the time, the Scots. Moreoever, the
English could see what Scottish formations would do against the cream
of feudal knights. So, when they returned to France, they did so
with a mindset of aiming to defeat France's knightly formations.
However, they would do so with an interesting twist.
>
> >The English learned that the best way to beat up Scottish
formations was to shoot em to death, then move in with the
*dismounted* knights (ie men-at-arms, now well armed and wielding
some big 2HCT weapon) to mop up. Take what the Scots did, muddle up
the approach to the infantry formations, and wah lah, the English
embark on the 100 Years War with two main weapons, men-at-arms and
longbowmen who, when situated correctly, could easily beat the crap
outta the French, again, this would be highlighted at Crecy and
Poiters.
>
> >Having said all of this, it was very clear to everyone that the
men-at-arms (used here in the generic sense to mean some infantry
schmoe armed with a 2HCT weapon who may or may not have been heavily
armored) were still no match for a determined cav charge (the Swiss
learned this early on) when standing alone, in the open and no
support. Hence, English tactical "doctrine" (informal tho it might
have been) depended heavily on missile fire, terrain, and some type
of local obstacle (be it a muddy field, pits, stakes, etc) to soften
up and break up the incoming cavalry charge. Then the knights were
no match for the 2HCT weapons which were specifically designed to
cleave thru armor, head to toe.
>
> >The Swiss would adopt yet another variation of this with their
combined pike/halberd formations. The pikes would serve the same
function as the older Scottish formations in stopping a determined
cav charge, then the halberds would move thru to finish up the job.
The Swiss developed the unit C&C to do this. You'll see that also
evolve into the Renaissance with Spanish formations.
>
> >Hopefully everybody can see that tactical systems in question that
grew out of the early 14th century were designed to do one thing
really really well, kill enemy cav. The reason the English stuck
with 2HCT/armored infantry for so long is because of their own civil
wars and facing opponents who had abundant missile troops. Heavily
armored men-at-arms could slog forward (all things being equal) in
the face of determined longbow fire, still close with the opposing
formation, and hack the crap out of it. They knew that charging
knights into a mass of longbowmen wasn't gonna work and sitting
around trading shots all day long with opposing longbow formations
didn't really have the initiative needed to decisively win battles.
Therefore, they had supporting missile troops well, support the
attacking men-at-arms. Gunpowder was beginning to make itself
effectively felt by now and that changed things as well but we won't
see any real wholescale English shift until the aftermath of Flodden
Field in 1513 which showed how good artillery handling could whack
the hell outta massed infantry formations....unless you had something
to counter the artillery (your own) or take it out early (cav coming
in from a flank).
>
> >Those tactical systems on the Continent weren't dealing with this
so much since the French amazingly stuck with a "knightly culture" in
one form or another until the 1450s and the Germans were little
different, despite the social and economic factors working against
said culture. The Italian Condotta captains also were similar. And
to be honest, since most opposition wasn't as determined as the Swiss
or the English, some type of mounted "knight" still had a tremendous
impact on the battlefield. Had the Swiss and English been mortal
enemies for the better part of the 14-15th centuries, chances are you
would have seen different tactical systems develop to fight each
other. Perhaps a "mixed armed" formation as the one outlined in the
original post. And then lemme toss out the Hussites and the whole
usage of battlefield mobile laagers. Again, another tactical
development designed by people with no money and/or training to be
able to play with the big knightly boys on your local battlefield.
>
> >As should be clear by now, this development centered around
beating up on knights. What it didn't center around was trying to
beat up on each other, ie, if the Hussites and English were
neighbors, just like the English/Swiss example above.
>
> >Whew. Basically, there is no good evidence to support a "second
rank" of LB being able to fire overhead of a front rank of 2HCTers.
As I'm getting ready to work on the WOTR list, I'll reexamine this
quite closely but I'm fairly comforatable at the moment with all the
stuff I've said about the 14th Century since that's much of what I've
been studying for the last 6 months.