Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

I totally agree with Cole on this--which is good, since we've wearied
each other with arguements on the subject for a couple of years. I did
my thesis on this back in '87, and books like Kuiper's on the Italian
banking system, which goes right to the heart of the influence of the
arms trade on day to day banking and right back on day to day
campaigning, plus the more recent "Devil's Broker" which I have to say
with some jealousy is just about the ne plus ultra on the subject (sure
wish I'd written it, and my hat's off to the author) do a lot to expose
how very thin the line between economics and chivalry really was. Not
that that's bad--they WERE chivalrous, right down to their fingers
ends--we just don't always understand how the rules applied and when
they were suspended--and bad things still sometimes happened.
As I, too, am very strongly considering doing a White Comapny army
for the 2006 theme, let me start by saying--have your seen the Perry
Miniatures figs? Superb.
Sorry to disagree, Mark, but the evidence is that in general it was
probably better to be a prisoner of a Free Company than of a King--they
needed the ransoms. And the "Devil's Broker" does a fair job of showing
that by their very nature, they played the Chivalry game as hard as
possible to gain preux in the eyes of their better born employers,
prospective employers, and the chivalrous world in general. They were
the very touch of death for les paysans, but consider that the
Chevauchee system evolved by the Platagenets depended wholly on the day
to day acts of arson, rape, theft and murder of their armies as the
cross-crossed France--in effect, no one was chivalrous to peasants who
were viewed as legitimate military targets.
And finally, they were pretty professional. This is an old
Rochester gamer arguement--I'm sure Mark and Dave S. hevae rehearsed it
on this list before--but I think the armies fighting in Italy in the
14th C. were probably more professional than most Roman armies and had
better quality soldiers, to boot. Hawkwood had a staff, had logisitical
systems, had a vast web of financial contracts in place to ensure that
his thugs (oops, those are gens d'armes) got paid often enough--regular
musters, training up through unit level, etc, etc--and so did his
opponents. The bulk of their gens d'armes were, despite 1970's
revisionist attempts., really gens d'armes--men who had trained for war
since childhood. Hawkwood lost as often as he won--not because he was a
bad general but because Italy in the day didn't tolerate any bad
generals. He was almost certainly the direct agent of Edward III's
Italian foreign policy throughout the period of his active career there,
and the direct grant of estates to him in England indicates that Edward
III accepted responsibility for his actions and approved them.
All pretty cool, in wargamers terms. And the Order of the Star has
attractions, too--not the French one, the Free Company--and the list
goes on.
I hope to meet you in the lists. Please pardon the pun.

Chris C.

>
>

[Mark Stone]

So, Christian knows full well that I don't disagree with anything he says here,
and haven't disagreed with it in twenty years. My choice of the word "chivalry"
was unfortunate, and inaccurate, so let me try and restate this.

I fret a lot about how our hobby looks to outsiders. Sure, there's lots people
can and will learn about the historical nuances of our period once they get
pulled into the hobby. I've seen this first-hand with my son Alex. But before
people get drawn in, they have to find the prospect appealing.

I used to hate the outward appearance we put on for a long time during 7th when
the dominant armies were Teutonic Knights, Late Imperial Romans, and Seleucids.
These were absolutely _not_ the top three armies I'd want to be showcasing to
get people thinking that our hobby is cool and interesting. I'm much happier
now with top tier, showcase armies that feature historical figures like
Alexander, Hannibal, the Black Prince, etc. The casual passer-by in Lancaster
is much more likely to see an army that he can recognize and relate to now that
all the FHE books are out than before.

So when I denigrate Free Companies, it is in this context. I've no doubt that
these guys were an interesting an honorable bunch of professionals who
represent and important turning point between the Feudal levy and the standing
army. That isn't my point. My point is that the fact that they may be a
tournament-viable army does little to add to the appeal of Warrior. These guys
don't jive with the causual observer's notion of "chivalric" warfare, and thus
don't create much of an opportunity for us to draw someone in.


-Mark Stone