Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Tom McMillan]

In a message dated 6/16/01 6:58:54 AM, WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com writes:

<< The equipment/technology/tactical changes
are more subtle/better concealed (less evidence/knowledge is part of this)
than for later periods, but essentially taking Hoplites against feudal
knights is akin to saying what if Napoleon had fought the Somme...answer
they'd have been machine gunned in column. Strategy and tactics change with
time, army composition (and troop type classification) is an integral part
of that development - just because it's pre gunpowder doesn't make it all
the same. >>

This one has been argued forever, of course, but I think it is a very
flawed comparison. Napoleon to the Somme was a technological, step by step
progression. Ancient Warfare was not. Had Alexander been on either side at
Hastings, facing two of the premier army types of the 11th century, he would
have wrapped up his victory in short order.
Yes, there were technological improvements, from which there was no going
back- I can think of 3- chariot to cav, the stirrup, plate armor. This does
make the Late medieval knight a somewhat Procrustean fit for the system, but
remember that even by Agincourt full plate was not in use.
Our period is a series of ebb and flow, not a progression that makes later
armies superior by virtue of possessing superior technology.

 

<< The equipment/technology/tactical changesare more subtle/better concealed (less evidence/knowledge is part of this)than for later periods, but essentially taking Hoplites against feudalknights is akin to saying what if Napoleon had fought the Somme...answerthey'd have been machine gunned in column. Strategy and tactics change withtime, army composition (and troop type classification) is an integral partof that development - just because it's pre gunpowder doesn't make it allthe same. >>   This one has been argued forever, of course, but I think it is a very flawed comparison. Napoleon to the Somme was a technological, step by step progression. [MJ] yeah it was meant to be an extreme.....tactics (eventually) changed as result of tech changes.
Ancient Warfare was not. Had Alexander been on either side at Hastings, facing two of the premier army types of the 11th century, he would have wrapped up his victory in short order.[MJ] I'm not at all certain we can say this given the material he was using...if you mean with his Mac veterans, then probably. With the Saecsen army as Harold had, I'm less sure...H wasn't a bad commander, he did nothing particularly wrong, it was attritional in the end.   Yes, there were technological improvements, from which there was no going back- I can think of 3- chariot to cav, the stirrup, plate armor. This does make the Late medieval knight a  somewhat Procrustean fit for the system, but remember that even by Agincourt full plate was not in use. [MJ] You seem to be concentrating on the purely tech, note that I was talking about a wider range of developmental issues   Our period is a series of ebb and flow, not a progression that makes later armies superior by virtue of  possessing superior technology. [MJ] this is an extreme interpretation of what I was trying to say: the fact that we use the same rule mechanisms, the same troop type definitions, the same morale indicators, the same combat factors to apply to them; all these for troops widely different by period, raised in diffrenet ways, with different social outlooks and expectations, employed in a different way, by commanders with widely varying subjective opinions of who/what and why they were...all this leads to simplification and the temptation to think that an LIM JLS,Sh is just an LMI JLS,Sh....no matter that we use the same category for widely different troop types from widely seperate epochs, used by commanders in widely different manners for a whole array of different reasons.
As I said "The equipment/technology/tactical changes are more subtle/better concealed (less evidence/knowledge is part of this)"

[Kelly Wilkinson]

I have to agree! One must remember that the Swiss
reach back in time and re-introduce the Pike to put a
severe butt whoopin on every Knight army they face for
a period of 70 years!
--- Quahog25@... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 6/16/01 6:58:54 AM,
> WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com writes:
>
> << The equipment/technology/tactical changes
> are more subtle/better concealed (less
> evidence/knowledge is part of this)
> than for later periods, but essentially taking
> Hoplites against feudal
> knights is akin to saying what if Napoleon had
> fought the Somme...answer
> they'd have been machine gunned in column. Strategy
> and tactics change with
> time, army composition (and troop type
> classification) is an integral part
> of that development - just because it's pre
> gunpowder doesn't make it all
> the same. >>
>
> This one has been argued forever, of course, but
> I think it is a very
> flawed comparison. Napoleon to the Somme was a
> technological, step by step
> progression. Ancient Warfare was not. Had Alexander
> been on either side at
> Hastings, facing two of the premier army types of
> the 11th century, he would
> have wrapped up his victory in short order.
> Yes, there were technological improvements, from
> which there was no going
> back- I can think of 3- chariot to cav, the stirrup,
> plate armor. This does
> make the Late medieval knight a somewhat
> Procrustean fit for the system, but
> remember that even by Agincourt full plate was not
> in use.
> Our period is a series of ebb and flow, not a
> progression that makes later
> armies superior by virtue of possessing superior
> technology.
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/