Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

I can understand why someone chose 429 AD ( the date they migrated
from Spain to N Africa ) as the cut off date for the Early Vandal
list, but in reality they were still a foot army 10 years later when
they took Carthage with their Moorish Allies. Could someone not have
checked the fact before giving the incorrect cut off date ?

[Bill Low]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "doc_scrumpy" <doc_scrumpy@y...>
wrote:
>
> I can understand why someone chose 429 AD ( the date they migrated
> from Spain to N Africa ) as the cut off date for the Early Vandal
> list, but in reality they were still a foot army 10 years later when
> they took Carthage with their Moorish Allies. Could someone not have
> checked the fact before giving the incorrect cut off date ?
>

We did, and we are happy with our choices. However, the fact that
there is in this case a relatively clear rationale for the designated
end date for Early Vandal does not mean that this is necessarily
always the case, and readers should be aware of this important
qualification in selecting and designing Warrior armies for
historical simulations.

1. Early Vandal (IW #25) has a designated duration of 200 – 439 AD,
while African Vandal (IW #35) has a designated duration of 440 to 553
AD.

2. Putting aside the usual limitations on what can be said with
confidence about the arms and armor of ancient armies (particularly
barbarians), the reality for most ancient armies is that developments
were often gradual and regional differences often continued beyond an
army's designated end date, and hence as a general rule the
designated duration of many armies is approximate.

3. Such for example is the case for the start date of 200 AD for
Early Vandal. This is a notable approximation, and we could have
used a date 50 or even 100 years earlier without too much fear of
contradiction (other than perhaps as to their geographical location
at the time).

4. The dates for African Vandal are actually pretty well fixed by a
couple of historical events or "markers" that bookend and help to
establish the officially designated duration dates for both. As we
understand it, the generally accepted chronology for the migration of
the Vandals to North Africa and eventual fall is roughly as follows:

429 AD – Vandals sail to North Africa
435 AD – Peace with the Romans; Vandals control most of Africa
439 AD – Vandals capture Carthage
533 AD – Fall of Carthage to Belisarius, final battle at Tricameron

5. No one can say with confidence the precise point at which the
Vandals transitioned from a predominantly foot to a predominantly
mounted army. Almost certainly the process was gradual, and the
experience gained from approximately ten years of fighting with and
against the Moors is likely to have had as great an impact as the
accretion of wealth associated with the capture of the major cities
of Roman Africa. Interaction with their long-time Alan allies may
also have played a role.

6. We chose to use the Vandalic capture of Carthage to mark
the "cut" between the earlier foot and later cavalry armies. We
could just as well have used 435 AD or even … albeit at a
considerable stretch … 429 AD, but we decided on 439/440 to reflect
the accumulated effects of the previous ten years and the gradual
transition that we believe occurred during that period.

7. Given that it has no impact on play or game mechanics, it is
perhaps hard to see why anyone would go out of their way to attack
such a decision, unless it has to do with a perceived conflict with
historical simulation. For gamers who wish to simulate the Vandal
campaigns in North Africa, for example, it might be perceived as a
problem that the army for the PRECISE YEAR that they wish to simulate
is presented in Imperial Warrior as "foot" or "cavalry" and I can see
how such a perceived problem could produce this sort of acita.

8. But that is the very point of this long screed: gamers should
approach the designated duration dates as advisory and should feel
perfectly free to adopt their own historical theories or
interpretations for their simulations of historical events. If you
personally believe, based on your own research or just the seat of
your pants, that the Vandals came over from Spain fully mounted, well
then that is how you should present them in your historical
simulations. We wouldn't agree with that interpretation, but you
need not feel bound by our duration dates.

[joncleaves]

Now that Bill has gone way out of the way to answer this question (good cop...)
it is my unpleasant but necessary duty to point out that the question:

" Could someone not have checked the fact before giving the incorrect cut off
date ?"

did not make any one of us want to even bother. But we chose to anyway for
demonstrative purposes. I cannot guarantee that we will be as forthcoming with
future questions as provocatively worded.

Jon


-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Low <lowclan@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:36:46 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Early Vandals


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "doc_scrumpy" <doc_scrumpy@y...>
wrote:
>
> I can understand why someone chose 429 AD ( the date they migrated
> from Spain to N Africa ) as the cut off date for the Early Vandal
> list, but in reality they were still a foot army 10 years later when
> they took Carthage with their Moorish Allies. Could someone not have
> checked the fact before giving the incorrect cut off date ?
>

We did, and we are happy with our choices. However, the fact that
there is in this case a relatively clear rationale for the designated
end date for Early Vandal does not mean that this is necessarily
always the case, and readers should be aware of this important
qualification in selecting and designing Warrior armies for
historical simulations.

1. Early Vandal (IW #25) has a designated duration of 200 ? 439 AD,
while African Vandal (IW #35) has a designated duration of 440 to 553
AD.

2. Putting aside the usual limitations on what can be said with
confidence about the arms and armor of ancient armies (particularly
barbarians), the reality for most ancient armies is that developments
were often gradual and regional differences often continued beyond an
army's designated end date, and hence as a general rule the
designated duration of many armies is approximate.

3. Such for example is the case for the start date of 200 AD for
Early Vandal. This is a notable approximation, and we could have
used a date 50 or even 100 years earlier without too much fear of
contradiction (other than perhaps as to their geographical location
at the time).

4. The dates for African Vandal are actually pretty well fixed by a
couple of historical events or "markers" that bookend and help to
establish the officially designated duration dates for both. As we
understand it, the generally accepted chronology for the migration of
the Vandals to North Africa and eventual fall is roughly as follows:

429 AD ? Vandals sail to North Africa
435 AD ? Peace with the Romans; Vandals control most of Africa
439 AD ? Vandals capture Carthage
533 AD ? Fall of Carthage to Belisarius, final battle at Tricameron

5. No one can say with confidence the precise point at which the
Vandals transitioned from a predominantly foot to a predominantly
mounted army. Almost certainly the process was gradual, and the
experience gained from approximately ten years of fighting with and
against the Moors is likely to have had as great an impact as the
accretion of wealth associated with the capture of the major cities
of Roman Africa. Interaction with their long-time Alan allies may
also have played a role.

6. We chose to use the Vandalic capture of Carthage to mark
the "cut" between the earlier foot and later cavalry armies. We
could just as well have used 435 AD or even ? albeit at a
considerable stretch ? 429 AD, but we decided on 439/440 to reflect
the accumulated effects of the previous ten years and the gradual
transition that we believe occurred during that period.

7. Given that it has no impact on play or game mechanics, it is
perhaps hard to see why anyone would go out of their way to attack
such a decision, unless it has to do with a perceived conflict with
historical simulation. For gamers who wish to simulate the Vandal
campaigns in North Africa, for example, it might be perceived as a
problem that the army for the PRECISE YEAR that they wish to simulate
is presented in Imperial Warrior as "foot" or "cavalry" and I can see
how such a perceived problem could produce this sort of acita.

8. But that is the very point of this long screed: gamers should
approach the designated duration dates as advisory and should feel
perfectly free to adopt their own historical theories or
interpretations for their simulations of historical events. If you
personally believe, based on your own research or just the seat of
your pants, that the Vandals came over from Spain fully mounted, well
then that is how you should present them in your historical
simulations. We wouldn't agree with that interpretation, but you
need not feel bound by our duration dates.









Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

I for one am glad that Bill took time out of his day to answer this comment. It
is always a good thing to understand how and why things are done the way they
are within FHE.

JonCleaves@... wrote: Now that Bill has gone way out of the way to answer
this question (good cop...) it is my unpleasant but necessary duty to point out
that the question:

" Could someone not have checked the fact before giving the incorrect cut off
date ?"

did not make any one of us want to even bother. But we chose to anyway for
demonstrative purposes. I cannot guarantee that we will be as forthcoming with
future questions as provocatively worded.

Jon


-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Low <lowclan@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:36:46 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Early Vandals


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "doc_scrumpy" <doc_scrumpy@y...>
wrote:
>
> I can understand why someone chose 429 AD ( the date they migrated
> from Spain to N Africa ) as the cut off date for the Early Vandal
> list, but in reality they were still a foot army 10 years later when
> they took Carthage with their Moorish Allies. Could someone not have
> checked the fact before giving the incorrect cut off date ?
>

We did, and we are happy with our choices. However, the fact that
there is in this case a relatively clear rationale for the designated
end date for Early Vandal does not mean that this is necessarily
always the case, and readers should be aware of this important
qualification in selecting and designing Warrior armies for
historical simulations.

1. Early Vandal (IW #25) has a designated duration of 200 ? 439 AD,
while African Vandal (IW #35) has a designated duration of 440 to 553
AD.

2. Putting aside the usual limitations on what can be said with
confidence about the arms and armor of ancient armies (particularly
barbarians), the reality for most ancient armies is that developments
were often gradual and regional differences often continued beyond an
army's designated end date, and hence as a general rule the
designated duration of many armies is approximate.

3. Such for example is the case for the start date of 200 AD for
Early Vandal. This is a notable approximation, and we could have
used a date 50 or even 100 years earlier without too much fear of
contradiction (other than perhaps as to their geographical location
at the time).

4. The dates for African Vandal are actually pretty well fixed by a
couple of historical events or "markers" that bookend and help to
establish the officially designated duration dates for both. As we
understand it, the generally accepted chronology for the migration of
the Vandals to North Africa and eventual fall is roughly as follows:

429 AD ? Vandals sail to North Africa
435 AD ? Peace with the Romans; Vandals control most of Africa
439 AD ? Vandals capture Carthage
533 AD ? Fall of Carthage to Belisarius, final battle at Tricameron

5. No one can say with confidence the precise point at which the
Vandals transitioned from a predominantly foot to a predominantly
mounted army. Almost certainly the process was gradual, and the
experience gained from approximately ten years of fighting with and
against the Moors is likely to have had as great an impact as the
accretion of wealth associated with the capture of the major cities
of Roman Africa. Interaction with their long-time Alan allies may
also have played a role.

6. We chose to use the Vandalic capture of Carthage to mark
the "cut" between the earlier foot and later cavalry armies. We
could just as well have used 435 AD or even ? albeit at a
considerable stretch ? 429 AD, but we decided on 439/440 to reflect
the accumulated effects of the previous ten years and the gradual
transition that we believe occurred during that period.

7. Given that it has no impact on play or game mechanics, it is
perhaps hard to see why anyone would go out of their way to attack
such a decision, unless it has to do with a perceived conflict with
historical simulation. For gamers who wish to simulate the Vandal
campaigns in North Africa, for example, it might be perceived as a
problem that the army for the PRECISE YEAR that they wish to simulate
is presented in Imperial Warrior as "foot" or "cavalry" and I can see
how such a perceived problem could produce this sort of acita.

8. But that is the very point of this long screed: gamers should
approach the designated duration dates as advisory and should feel
perfectly free to adopt their own historical theories or
interpretations for their simulations of historical events. If you
personally believe, based on your own research or just the seat of
your pants, that the Vandals came over from Spain fully mounted, well
then that is how you should present them in your historical
simulations. We wouldn't agree with that interpretation, but you
need not feel bound by our duration dates.









Yahoo! Groups Links






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



SPONSORED LINKS
Miniature wargaming Wargaming Four horsemen Warrior

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

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

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


---------------------------------






---------------------------------
Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

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

7. Given that it has no impact on play or game mechanics, it is
perhaps hard to see why anyone would go out of their way to attack
such a decision, unless it has to do with a perceived conflict with
historical simulation.

I can only assume that written English somehow loses something when
read by Americans as there was no attack there at all.

As an aside, given that the list does go to 439 AD, why does it allow
for subject LMI/LI ( I assume that can include Moors ? ) and not
subject LC ?

Cheers

[Ewan McNay]

doc_scrumpy wrote:

> 7. Given that it has no impact on play or game mechanics, it is
> perhaps hard to see why anyone would go out of their way to attack
> such a decision, unless it has to do with a perceived conflict with
> historical simulation.
>
> I can only assume that written English somehow loses something when
> read by Americans as there was no attack there at all.

Oh, get real.


Now, no-one is likely to mistake me for a staunch defender of FHE here .
But starting a discussion with the assumption of error, and then flatly
asking 'why did you do this stupid thing?' is hardly sculpted to promote
pleasant exchange.

And I'm English, thanks.

[joncleaves]

<<Now, no-one is likely to mistake me for a staunch defender of FHE here . >>

Well, I don't know about staunch - but I thought you did a good job...

<< But starting a discussion with the assumption of error, and then flatly
asking 'why did you do this stupid thing?' is hardly sculpted to promote
pleasant exchange.>>

I think Bill's answer set the standard for 'pleasant exchange'.

Thanks, Ewan.

J


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

[Greg Regets]

I've certainly had my differences with FHE lists, and have had no
problem presenting my "suggestions" on this board. I have tried tact,
I have tried bluntness, I have tried massive historical backup, I
have even tried rudeness.

Nothing works. The final analysis, is that history is subjective, and
sometimes people will not agree. FHE owns the game, and that just is,
what it is (rightfully so, I might add).

In my area with the guys I played with, I presented my case to them,
and they agreed with me. They are letting me play my own list,
because history backs me. By coincidence, the list I created isn't
really better ... just different. I'm sure that played a part in
people allowing me to play it. We have done this with Bill Chris and
his Hoplites in the past, allowed him to use extra ranks fighting ...
and that is now part of the FHE army list.

I'm sure if you are on solid ground historically the guys in your
area wouldn't object, and I FHE has always supported people doing
what they wanted in their own area, as long as it supports Warrior.

Thanks ... g





--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> <<Now, no-one is likely to mistake me for a staunch defender of FHE
here . >>
>
> Well, I don't know about staunch - but I thought you did a good
job...
>
> << But starting a discussion with the assumption of error, and
then flatly
> asking 'why did you do this stupid thing?' is hardly sculpted to
promote
> pleasant exchange.>>
>
> I think Bill's answer set the standard for 'pleasant exchange'.
>
> Thanks, Ewan.
>
> J
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[joncleaves]

<<I have tried tact,
I have tried bluntness, I have tried massive historical backup, I
have even tried rudeness.>>

Hey, .500 is a great average in baseball....lol

Seriously - I missed the massive historical backup mail. Could you resend it to
me or give me the archive number. I - sincerely - would like to know exactly
what you mean when you say massive historical backup. This is not a joke, I
really do want to know.


Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Regets <greg.regets@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:36:17 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Early Vandals


I've certainly had my differences with FHE lists, and have had no
problem presenting my "suggestions" on this board. I have tried tact,
I have tried bluntness, I have tried massive historical backup, I
have even tried rudeness.

Nothing works. The final analysis, is that history is subjective, and
sometimes people will not agree. FHE owns the game, and that just is,
what it is (rightfully so, I might add).

In my area with the guys I played with, I presented my case to them,
and they agreed with me. They are letting me play my own list,
because history backs me. By coincidence, the list I created isn't
really better ... just different. I'm sure that played a part in
people allowing me to play it. We have done this with Bill Chris and
his Hoplites in the past, allowed him to use extra ranks fighting ...
and that is now part of the FHE army list.

I'm sure if you are on solid ground historically the guys in your
area wouldn't object, and I FHE has always supported people doing
what they wanted in their own area, as long as it supports Warrior.

Thanks ... g





--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> <<Now, no-one is likely to mistake me for a staunch defender of FHE
here . >>
>
> Well, I don't know about staunch - but I thought you did a good
job...
>
> << But starting a discussion with the assumption of error, and
then flatly
> asking 'why did you do this stupid thing?' is hardly sculpted to
promote
> pleasant exchange.>>
>
> I think Bill's answer set the standard for 'pleasant exchange'.
>
> Thanks, Ewan.
>
> J
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>








Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

By the way, Ewan is VERY English. How sir, do you take your tea?!

kelly


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
wrote:
>
>
>
> doc_scrumpy wrote:
>
> > 7. Given that it has no impact on play or game mechanics, it is
> > perhaps hard to see why anyone would go out of their way to
attack
> > such a decision, unless it has to do with a perceived conflict
with
> > historical simulation.
> >
> > I can only assume that written English somehow loses something
when
> > read by Americans as there was no attack there at all.
>
> Oh, get real.
>
>
> Now, no-one is likely to mistake me for a staunch defender of FHE
here .
> But starting a discussion with the assumption of error, and then
flatly
> asking 'why did you do this stupid thing?' is hardly sculpted to
promote
> pleasant exchange.
>
> And I'm English, thanks.
>

[Greg Regets]

It's in an email that I probably deleted quite some time ago. I would
have to redo this, and am certainly willing.

Would you prefer I post it here, or send it to you via email?

Thanks ... g




--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
>
> <<I have tried tact,
> I have tried bluntness, I have tried massive historical backup, I
> have even tried rudeness.>>
>
> Hey, .500 is a great average in baseball....lol
>
> Seriously - I missed the massive historical backup mail. Could you
resend it to me or give me the archive number. I - sincerely - would
like to know exactly what you mean when you say massive historical
backup. This is not a joke, I really do want to know.
>
>
> Jon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Regets <greg.regets@g...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:36:17 -0000
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Early Vandals
>
>
> I've certainly had my differences with FHE lists, and have had no
> problem presenting my "suggestions" on this board. I have tried
tact,
> I have tried bluntness, I have tried massive historical backup, I
> have even tried rudeness.
>
> Nothing works. The final analysis, is that history is subjective,
and
> sometimes people will not agree. FHE owns the game, and that just
is,
> what it is (rightfully so, I might add).
>
> In my area with the guys I played with, I presented my case to
them,
> and they agreed with me. They are letting me play my own list,
> because history backs me. By coincidence, the list I created isn't
> really better ... just different. I'm sure that played a part in
> people allowing me to play it. We have done this with Bill Chris
and
> his Hoplites in the past, allowed him to use extra ranks
fighting ...
> and that is now part of the FHE army list.
>
> I'm sure if you are on solid ground historically the guys in your
> area wouldn't object, and I FHE has always supported people doing
> what they wanted in their own area, as long as it supports Warrior.
>
> Thanks ... g
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> >
> > <<Now, no-one is likely to mistake me for a staunch defender of
FHE
> here . >>
> >
> > Well, I don't know about staunch - but I thought you did a good
> job...
> >
> > << But starting a discussion with the assumption of error, and
> then flatly
> > asking 'why did you do this stupid thing?' is hardly sculpted to
> promote
> > pleasant exchange.>>
> >
> > I think Bill's answer set the standard for 'pleasant exchange'.
> >
> > Thanks, Ewan.
> >
> > J
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>