Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Forgive me if this is old news, but I'm new to the
list.

I don't want to start another argument, but I am
curious if anyone has discussed the idea of formation
or shield wall fighting vs. mellee on the WarriorRules
list. The theory was that close ordered troops like
hoplites and phalangites, could beat other foot with
sheer momentum and mass.

The downside was that, if the formation was disrupted
by terrain, flank attacks, or failure to push the
enemy back, the troops would be mixed up in confused
HTH combat; they would have to drop their unwieldy
long spears and use their side arm, in which they were
not as well trained. Victory would then (usually) go
to the troops better suited and armed for HTH, such as
Gallic warriors, Saxons, Islamic fanatics, Illyrians,
etc.

(What brought this to mind was the discussion over the
inferiority of jls armed MI. Jls would be better in
mellee than Lts.) Some units, like Viking Huscarls
and Roman Legions could do both. Proponents point to
the success of Galations against pike armies and the
performance of Pyrus' army vs. Rome to support their
point. He was only defeated when in hilly terrain.

If this theory is true, it would be very hard to
replicate in a set of miniatures rules. That old
game, Shock of Impact, tried. Does anyone have any
theories on A) if this is true and B) how to
incorporate it into miniatures? This would also mean
that the secret of Rome's success was in the short
sword, not in the HTW.

Al Ronnfeldt



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

[joncleaves]

This would also mean
that the secret of Rome's success was in the short
sword, not in the HTW.>>

I feel (naturally..lol) that we have accounted for this - we certainly believe
it.

The weapon factor HTW gets at first contact is a combination of the impact of
the weapon as thrown as well as the fact that the troops who employed such also
employed an effective single-handed HTH weapon.
What needed modeling was the continued (over time in a fight) superiority of
earlier Romans over other troops armed with what could be called HTW - this is
the effect 1HCW was designed to create.

Jon

--- JonCleaves@... wrote:
> The weapon factor HTW gets at first contact is a
> combination of the impact of the weapon as thrown as
> well as the fact that the troops who employed such
> also employed an effective single-handed HTH weapon.

It is not my intent to criticize the rules or to infer
that the DBM treatment of legionares is better. I'm
only toying with an idea to see if we can come up with
any improvements that could be added into a later
edition. I am a compulsive tinkerer, no matter how
good rules are (and Warrior rules are good)I'm looking
for a way to improve them. But I understand that I
don't want to make them too complicated either.

I understand what you've said. However, the Romans
later traded in the Pilum for javelins and darts. If
they were still given training in HTH combat, their
effectiveness would not be diminished that much. But
infantry with jls is far inferior to HTW at first
contact. Or is that reflected in the army list? I
have not received my copy of Imperial Warrior yet.

For the most part, the HTW over Jls combat factor fits
historical performance. For example, Germanic
warriors were trained in sword as well, but I have
read historians who explain that the slashing sword
the Germans used was not as useful in close combat as
the thrusting sword. (Which goes back to close
formation fighting again.)

However, there were some peoples who trained
extensively with the short thrusting spear, which
could be as deadly as a short sword in HTH. There are
also peoples who were trained swordsman but did not
carry javelins, like early Egyptians, Hittites,
Vikings, Samurai. Both of these usually lose against
troops with HTW, Lts, 2HCW. Is this historically
accurate? Did the Pilum, Angon, etc. really make that
much more of a difference? (Drat, what was the name
of the Frank's throwing axe again?) I would concede
that heavy weapons would have more effect on HI, but
jls would have the advantage of more ammunition vs MI
and LI. If history bears this out, I'll concede the
point. I also concede that Jls are inferior against L
armed cavalry.

Long story short, I don't like the fact that Dark Ages
infantry (the type you find in Crusader armies and
Anglo-Norse) armed with Jls have the same performance
as Illyrian, Visigoth, Saxon, Galation, etc. on the
combat chart. The former were cannon fodder and the
latter were skilled and motivated troops. True,
militia is usually rated Irr D, but most army lists in
Dark Ages Warrior give you an option to raise at least
1/2 to Irr C, and Irr D troops can beat Irr C with
good dice.

Al Ronnfeldt



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

[joncleaves]

(Drat, what was the name
of the Frank's throwing axe again?) >>

I believe you are referring to the francisca.

jon

[Frank Gilson]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> (Drat, what was the name
> of the Frank's throwing axe again?) >>
>
> I believe you are referring to the francisca.
>
> jon

Well, I didn't know I have been elevated to being "The Frank". ;)

Oh, and the name of my throwing axe is Bob.

The Frank