Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

I'd like to start out this post by saying that I would be happy to
have the rules stay the way they are on this topic. The rules as they
stand allow all sorts of happy abuses that I'm glad to use. But my
love of history and desire to play a Historical game over and above a
fantasty one trumps that, so I'll push...

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> An element of MI NOMINALLY represents four ranks of 200 men on the
> ground at 50 men per rank. At 60p frontage (150 feet) each man gets
> a 3 foot box to stand in. That is actually VERY small and
> represents those few times the men literally stand behind their
> brother's shields. Most of the time it is 4-5 feet square per man.

My comments about failing my suspension of disbelief check was
directed to this argument John. In specific, it doesn't stand up to
any historical scrutiny. Vegetius sinks it quite soundly when he
writes in his chapter on training troops:

"The first thing the soldiers are to be taught is the military step,
which can only be acquired by constant practice of marching quick and
together. Nor is anything of more consequence either on the march or
in the line than that they should keep their ranks with the greatest
exactness. For troops who march in an irregular and disorderly manner
are always in great danger of being defeated"

and in his chapter on proper distances and intervals:

"Having explained the general disposition of the lines, we now come to
the distances and dimensions. One thousand paces contain a single rank
of one thousand six hundred and fifty-six foot soldiers, each man
being allowed three feet. Six ranks drawn up on the same extent of
ground will require nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-six men. To
form only three ranks of the same number will take up two thousand
paces, but it is much better to increase the number of ranks than to
make your front too extensive. We have before observed the distance
between each rank should be six feet, one foot of which is taken up by
the men. Thus if you form a body of ten thousand men into six ranks
they will occupy thirty-six feet. in depth and a thousand paces in
front. By this calculation it is easy to compute the extent of ground
required for twenty or thirty thousand men to form upon. Nor can a
general be mistaken when thus he knows the proportion of ground for
any fixed number of men."

So, as you can readily see, the author whose works served as the
standard European source for the use of foot soldiers for over a
millenia (Charlemagne, Richard the Lionheart, Henry V, the Dukes of
Burgundy and Kings of France, and so forth all used it. Richard the
Lionheard supposedly carried a copy on campaign with him) doesn't
leave any room for for your contention that units spend most of their
time at a much looser order.

Quite the opposite, he states a single unbroken line 3/5 of a mile
long with the men standing shoulder to shoulder is the rule of the day.

Of course, the rules as they stand allow really big gaps in the line,
so an army formed up on the tabletop tends to look very little like a
single unbroken line and more like a scattering of units.

> As a figure can represent up to 85 men and we are also not talking
> about loose or open order yet, you can easily see that the actual
> element base itself does not - in Warrior - represent a force field
> containing all the men hermetically sealed therein. In reality, the
> amount of ground covered by an element varies greatly - and could
> EASILY mean men physically standing well outside of where the
> nominal element edge is located on the tabletop. Warrior handles
> this by putting a 40p 'zone' around a body along with the one
> element gap rule so that we can skip writing several more pages of
> rules just to get the kind of line we want represented or to take
> into account gaps between different orders of troops or units at
> differing troop strengths.

But the rules allow for situations that are:

Ahistorical
Illogical
Look silly

Which is more that enough to require the re-write you state. However,
I've just read over the rules in question, and believe they can simply
be correct with the following statements:

"Each element represents a body of men within the confines of their
base.

6.0 Drop section beginning "a body within 40 paces of an enemy body"

6.13
- Drop sentance beginning "An approach move cannot end closer than 40
paces
- Change sentence beginning "A body that interpenetrates..." to
read "A body that interpenetrates during marches must be able to fit
beyond the body interpenetrated. If this is not possible the
interpenetration may not be made.
- Drop final paragraph

6.53 Drop sentence beginning "An enemy body cannot charge an enemy
unit through a gap less than 2 elements wide unless any enemy bodies
forming the gap are broken or in H-T-H combat from the previous bound."

This is perhaps the most aggredious rule in the whole area. By having
a unit 1 pace back from the frontage of his line a player can provide
himself with an immunity to being charged. That is just indefensible.

The sole remaining issue is how to deal with units moving into contact
without charging. I'd suggest the following:

- Allow units to move into contact without charging if they would be
allowed to charge the target.
- Allow charge responses to units in contact at the beginning of the
charge phase if they were contacted without charging
- If they remain in contact after evades, counters, and what not have
them fight without charge bonuses.

Also, since the game has to have a bunch of rules to deal with the
situation where units get inside the 40 pace exclusion zone (which
happens frequently) getting rid of it actually simplifies everything
in addition to making it more historical.

And in the end, how about trying it out rather than trying to defend
something that history doesn't support. I will...

Have fun!
Cole

[joncleaves]

"And in the end, how about trying it out rather than trying to defend
something that history doesn't support."

I do not concur with your version of history. I have explained this to you both
on and off group. I have even gone so far as to make a diagram to show what
exactly it is we are talking about and simulating. I might have even gone on in
this debate despite my personal feeling that it is unneccessary and the fact
that it detracts from me getting the rules done. But your sentence above
removed all motivation on my part to do so.

As for Vegetius, and his DRM, here's a quote from a reviewer I have much respect
for.

"The book, which is a confused and unscientific compilation, has to be used with
great caution"

V wrote anachronistically about events he did not witness. If he's your primary
source, this 'debate' is even easier to end.

I do have a great deal of patience with things Warrior. I am running out of it
with respect to being told I don't understand military history. It is my
profession. I do not claim to be perfect at it - no one is. But I am losing
the ability to be lectured on it and still continue the conversation.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas Cioran <ncioran@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 18:30:12 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Element Density and Exclusion Zone (was Threading the
gaps)


I'd like to start out this post by saying that I would be happy to
have the rules stay the way they are on this topic. The rules as they
stand allow all sorts of happy abuses that I'm glad to use. But my
love of history and desire to play a Historical game over and above a
fantasty one trumps that, so I'll push...

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> An element of MI NOMINALLY represents four ranks of 200 men on the
> ground at 50 men per rank. At 60p frontage (150 feet) each man gets
> a 3 foot box to stand in. That is actually VERY small and
> represents those few times the men literally stand behind their
> brother's shields. Most of the time it is 4-5 feet square per man.

My comments about failing my suspension of disbelief check was
directed to this argument John. In specific, it doesn't stand up to
any historical scrutiny. Vegetius sinks it quite soundly when he
writes in his chapter on training troops:

"The first thing the soldiers are to be taught is the military step,
which can only be acquired by constant practice of marching quick and
together. Nor is anything of more consequence either on the march or
in the line than that they should keep their ranks with the greatest
exactness. For troops who march in an irregular and disorderly manner
are always in great danger of being defeated"

and in his chapter on proper distances and intervals:

"Having explained the general disposition of the lines, we now come to
the distances and dimensions. One thousand paces contain a single rank
of one thousand six hundred and fifty-six foot soldiers, each man
being allowed three feet. Six ranks drawn up on the same extent of
ground will require nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-six men. To
form only three ranks of the same number will take up two thousand
paces, but it is much better to increase the number of ranks than to
make your front too extensive. We have before observed the distance
between each rank should be six feet, one foot of which is taken up by
the men. Thus if you form a body of ten thousand men into six ranks
they will occupy thirty-six feet. in depth and a thousand paces in
front. By this calculation it is easy to compute the extent of ground
required for twenty or thirty thousand men to form upon. Nor can a
general be mistaken when thus he knows the proportion of ground for
any fixed number of men."

So, as you can readily see, the author whose works served as the
standard European source for the use of foot soldiers for over a
millenia (Charlemagne, Richard the Lionheart, Henry V, the Dukes of
Burgundy and Kings of France, and so forth all used it. Richard the
Lionheard supposedly carried a copy on campaign with him) doesn't
leave any room for for your contention that units spend most of their
time at a much looser order.

Quite the opposite, he states a single unbroken line 3/5 of a mile
long with the men standing shoulder to shoulder is the rule of the day.

Of course, the rules as they stand allow really big gaps in the line,
so an army formed up on the tabletop tends to look very little like a
single unbroken line and more like a scattering of units.

> As a figure can represent up to 85 men and we are also not talking
> about loose or open order yet, you can easily see that the actual
> element base itself does not - in Warrior - represent a force field
> containing all the men hermetically sealed therein. In reality, the
> amount of ground covered by an element varies greatly - and could
> EASILY mean men physically standing well outside of where the
> nominal element edge is located on the tabletop. Warrior handles
> this by putting a 40p 'zone' around a body along with the one
> element gap rule so that we can skip writing several more pages of
> rules just to get the kind of line we want represented or to take
> into account gaps between different orders of troops or units at
> differing troop strengths.

But the rules allow for situations that are:

Ahistorical
Illogical
Look silly

Which is more that enough to require the re-write you state. However,
I've just read over the rules in question, and believe they can simply
be correct with the following statements:

"Each element represents a body of men within the confines of their
base.

6.0 Drop section beginning "a body within 40 paces of an enemy body"

6.13
- Drop sentance beginning "An approach move cannot end closer than 40
paces
- Change sentence beginning "A body that interpenetrates..." to
read "A body that interpenetrates during marches must be able to fit
beyond the body interpenetrated. If this is not possible the
interpenetration may not be made.
- Drop final paragraph

6.53 Drop sentence beginning "An enemy body cannot charge an enemy
unit through a gap less than 2 elements wide unless any enemy bodies
forming the gap are broken or in H-T-H combat from the previous bound."

This is perhaps the most aggredious rule in the whole area. By having
a unit 1 pace back from the frontage of his line a player can provide
himself with an immunity to being charged. That is just indefensible.

The sole remaining issue is how to deal with units moving into contact
without charging. I'd suggest the following:

- Allow units to move into contact without charging if they would be
allowed to charge the target.
- Allow charge responses to units in contact at the beginning of the
charge phase if they were contacted without charging
- If they remain in contact after evades, counters, and what not have
them fight without charge bonuses.

Also, since the game has to have a bunch of rules to deal with the
situation where units get inside the 40 pace exclusion zone (which
happens frequently) getting rid of it actually simplifies everything
in addition to making it more historical.

And in the end, how about trying it out rather than trying to defend
something that history doesn't support. I will...

Have fun!
Cole







Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Doug]

>As for Vegetius, and his DRM, here's a quote from a reviewer I have
>much respect for.
>
>"The book, which is a confused and unscientific compilation, has to
>be used with great caution"
>
>V wrote anachronistically about events he did not witness. If he's
>your primary source, this 'debate' is even easier to end.
>
>Jon

I think the salient point is whether or not the ancient & medieval
generals who read Vegetius used his tactics as written?