Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Tom McMillan]

In a message dated 5/30/02 9:43:08 PM, WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com writes:

<< Correct me if I'm wrong, but close to zero historical battles were fought
between armies that brought an equal number of equivalent troop points.
However, because of the *game* we play, both sides have an equal number of
points to field. >>

Ok, I'll correct you. (In my opinion...) Pitched battles were generally
fought when both sides thought they had a reasonable chance. Large pitched
battles were few and far between, because both sides would only take the
field (short of desperation and certain other situations) when a balance had
been struck. it could easily take years of campaigning for the ebb and flow
of either side's fortune to make this possible. Otherwise the weaker side
avoided battle, which was easy enough to do.
So most of your famous battles, the Cannaes, the Chalonses, the
Hastingses, were fought by forces which their commanders beleived to be more
or less equal.

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 05/31/2002 7:31:20 AM Central Daylight Time,
HOVEYJA2@... writes:

<< Casualties tended to be very low in ancients as compared to 'modern' war so
it wasn't like you were marching out to get slaughtered to the last man. If
the Polis next door was talking trash you marched out to meet them becuase
thats what you did. No one counted spears before making that call, becuase
there wasn't any call to make. Casualties would be incredibly low on the
winning side and very low on the losing side too in most cases. Then win or
lose everyone went to bed feeling much more 'manly'.
>>

Up to this point you were tracking well. This is where you fall of the beam.
Casualties were typically brutal. Prisoners were not exchanged nor
ransomed, so death was often chosen over surrender. The ability to escape
the field was also low. One of the true uses of Cav was pursuit as opposed
to the frontal charges we all love so much Caesar's chronicles report enemy
casualties in the 50-90k range. Show me a battle since that had such carnage
particularly as a percentage of the number of participants taking place. I
do agree as you pass into the post ancient world casualties drop off
signifigantly, but that could be a reflection of drastically smaller armies
and in many cases far less organizational skill in the art of killing your
enemy.
Chris

<<< So most of your famous battles, the Cannaes, the Chalonses, the
Hastingses, were fought by forces which their commanders beleived to be more

or less equal. >>>

In general I don't think thats true. Battle wasn't always easy to avoid and
good generals have always had ways of 'forcing' battle. Simplest being
sitting your army on the other guys line of communication/supply or just by
making a serious threat on it.

The fact that winners write history tends to downplay some of the mismatches
too. If you just won a 'great victory' against some scruffy natives are you
going to admit they were outnumbered by your legionaires 3-1 and starving or
just leave it at 'they had a HUNGRY look in their eyes and there were so
many they couldn't be counted!' (It gets hard to count once you run out of
fingers and toes!)

Casualties tended to be very low in ancients as compared to 'modern' war so
it wasn't like you were marching out to get slaughtered to the last man. If
the Polis next door was talking trash you marched out to meet them becuase
thats what you did. No one counted spears before making that call, becuase
there wasn't any call to make. Casualties would be incredibly low on the
winning side and very low on the losing side too in most cases. Then win or
lose everyone went to bed feeling much more 'manly'.

I tend to agree with whoever made the first post that 'fair' fights are
almost urban myth.




-----Original Message-----
From: Quahog25@... [mailto:Quahog25@...]
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 9:54 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Historical battles



In a message dated 5/30/02 9:43:08 PM, WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com writes:

<< Correct me if I'm wrong, but close to zero historical battles were fought
between armies that brought an equal number of equivalent troop points.
However, because of the *game* we play, both sides have an equal number of
points to field. >>

Ok, I'll correct you. (In my opinion...) Pitched battles were generally
fought when both sides thought they had a reasonable chance. Large pitched
battles were few and far between, because both sides would only take the
field (short of desperation and certain other situations) when a balance had

been struck. it could easily take years of campaigning for the ebb and flow
of either side's fortune to make this possible. Otherwise the weaker side
avoided battle, which was easy enough to do.
So most of your famous battles, the Cannaes, the Chalonses, the
Hastingses, were fought by forces which their commanders beleived to be more

or less equal.



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



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

My bad, I over generalized. We are talking about 5000 years and it does
really depend on the period a lot. Go back to Greek Hoplite warfare (which
predates Caesar and was in my brain as I was writing) and more or less no
one died.

Even cavalry pursuit casualties weren't usually significant. Thats why
battles like Cannae or Teutobergervald (sp?) are so famous (INfamous maybe?)
in that the Romans were literally wiped out.

Your statement about most wounded not surviving and prisoners not being
exchanged is also very period specific. In most cases prisoners were
exchanged (certain holy order knights being executed and Agincourt spring to
mind as noteworthy exceptions - wouldn't be noteworthy if that practice was
'the rule').

Wounded survival rate? Well... that is going to be pretty period dependent
as well. Believe their propaganda and reputation and no Mongol was ever
killed by an arrow. Many famous Greeks boasted battle wounds and went on to
live long lives.

Regardless, the main factor in casualties is the number of participants who
actually fought. When you have some formations lining up incredibly deep
(Thebans were 64 deep at Mantinea right?) what percentage of those guys
actually got to look an enemy in the eye? Four ranks or Five? Thats still
just 5% of the total. I picked a super extreme example, but it holds true
for most classical infantry formations to some extent.





-----Original Message-----
From: cncbump@... [mailto:cncbump@...]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 10:07 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Historical battles


In a message dated 05/31/2002 7:31:20 AM Central Daylight Time,
HOVEYJA2@... writes:

<< Casualties tended to be very low in ancients as compared to 'modern' war
so
it wasn't like you were marching out to get slaughtered to the last man.
If
the Polis next door was talking trash you marched out to meet them becuase
thats what you did. No one counted spears before making that call, becuase
there wasn't any call to make. Casualties would be incredibly low on the
winning side and very low on the losing side too in most cases. Then win
or
lose everyone went to bed feeling much more 'manly'.
>>

Up to this point you were tracking well. This is where you fall of the
beam.
Casualties were typically brutal. Prisoners were not exchanged nor
ransomed, so death was often chosen over surrender. The ability to escape
the field was also low. One of the true uses of Cav was pursuit as opposed
to the frontal charges we all love so much Caesar's chronicles report enemy

casualties in the 50-90k range. Show me a battle since that had such
carnage
particularly as a percentage of the number of participants taking place. I
do agree as you pass into the post ancient world casualties drop off
signifigantly, but that could be a reflection of drastically smaller armies
and in many cases far less organizational skill in the art of killing your
enemy.
Chris


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



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[scott holder]

My bad, I over generalized. We are talking about 5000 years and it does
really depend on the period a lot. Go back to Greek Hoplite warfare
(which
predates Caesar and was in my brain as I was writing) and more or less
no
one died.

>Heh heh, how about another disagreement? Recent analysis of hoplite
warfare does feel that casualties *during* the combat portion of our
program were relatively light. The model I've read about most is that
the two blocks lurched into each other and an extended rugby scrum
occurred. It was only when one block (for whatever reasons) decided it
had had enough for the day, that real carnage ensued. Said weeny block
would turn and run, only to get poked/stabbed/slashed from behind by the
"pursuing" hoplites. In this case, casualties could be high and while
they occurred during the "tactical engagement" time line, if you break
it down even more specifically, said carnage occurred during pursuit and
after actual H-T-H. At least that's the current reading of the record.


Even cavalry pursuit casualties weren't usually significant. Thats why
battles like Cannae or Teutobergervald (sp?) are so famous (INfamous
maybe?) in that the Romans were literally wiped out.

>Mainly because they were left no "out". Or at least an "out path"
sufficiently large enough to handle the fleeing people. Once bunched up
and overcome with the "get me the hell outta here" urge, such troops are
easy targets and thus, dead meat, if they're "flow path" is constricted.
Other battles (Alexander's for instance) miss quite a bit of this since
the Persians usually had ample room in the rear to run and clearly took
advantage of it on 3 occasions:) At Cannae, that might have been
true in the initial deployment but as the Roman flanks collapsed around
the center, any meaningful way "backwards" for the Romans literally
meant running the Carthagenian gauntlet on the way back to the Eternal
City.

Your statement about most wounded not surviving and prisoners not being
exchanged is also very period specific. In most cases prisoners were
exchanged (certain holy order knights being executed and Agincourt
spring to mind as noteworthy exceptions - wouldn't be noteworthy if that
practice was 'the rule').

>As you indicate, very very very period specific. During much of the
post-Punic era in Rome, such prisoners became slaves and were thus, a
commodity that could be traded, made money with, and given to loyal
soldiers, etc. Flash forward to the Mongols and you find prisoners were
usually executed, unless it was a city that surrendered without a fight,
then they were "paroled" (kinda sorta). Tamerlane (same era) was
easier, he killed damn near everybody. Aztecs, prisoners *could* be a
big deal because of the whole warrior ethos thing but that's also been
overstated, at least according to Hassig.

Scott
List Ho