Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Chris, this is a superb post.

<<Warrior tends to make gamers focus on technology, because we play in a
technology driven system. >>

That is true as far as it goes. From a hand to hand standpoint, not
entirely true. Trained troops perform in a varied manner in accordance with
formation, tactics and capability. One simple, subtle example: how many times
has
a Warrior player rolled down 1 and said - I get that back because I am B's.
It's not the small deal that it seems - it is one of the clever things about
this engine that caused myself and the others to form FHE in the first place.
Another example - P gets four ranks of effect, yet there is no way the
technology permitted a pikeman in the last rank to extend his pike and strike
an
enemy sixteen man-spaces away. That effect occurs because of the training
and formation and doctrine of the pike troops and not the tech they employed.

<< Fair enough, because the rules work so well,
but I guess my first comment is that in an archery firefight between
Russian militia and Mongol professionals, I suspect the result is
somewhat fore-ordained, regardless of the range.>>


A good point. But massed effects matters more with missile fire than with
hand to hand. I could teach anyone to fire an arrow into the box the men of a
pike phalanx fit into, but it would take a long time if ever for me to teach
them to hit a man-sized target 100p or 200p away. Trained archers or lesser
archers can all get their arrows to fall into the box, and it is the effects
of arrows falling into the box that matters at Warrior's scale. In our
skirmish game, SwordClash, training of the archer matters a great deal in terms
of hitting individual targets. But Warrior missile fire is not aimed at
individual targets.


<< Something they have in common is
that they are all pointing their bows either level or slightly down in
combat scenes. (I'll add a parenthetical challenge - show me a period
piece of art showing a steppe nomad shooting his bow above the horizon
that isn't a depiction of bird hunting. I can't find one, but that
doesn't mean they aren't there). This, coupled with the light flight
arrows, suggests to me that they commonly used their bows at very short
ranges, almost the way 18th C. cavalry used pistols. (This is the way
we know most Native Americans fought with bows on horseback in the 18th
and 19th Cs). I'm sure that the Scythians and Mongols both made use of
distance archery; a volley from 3-400 meters with the wind at your back
before launching a charge would be intimidating; but the actual
effectiveness of such a shot is open to question.>>

This is research which matches ours for whatever that is worth.

<< Somewhere in this house I have a contemporary description of
Turkish elite cavalry having a Gymkhana in the 15th C. I can't find it
to add scholarly proof to my assertion, but my memory is that they fired
at six targets, three on the right of the horse, and three on the left,
at a full gallop, and then shot two of the targets again after they
passed. My memory is that all of the targets were within a fairly small
space; perhaps fifty to sixty yards long, and directly in the path of
the horse. This would, tactically, bear out the idea that the bow was
primarily a close in weapon.>>

Indeed, we would agree.

<< Most ancient authors believed that slings were better for long
range shooting than bows. Hmmm. How do you represent THAT in warrior?>>

That gap between 80p and 120p.... ;)

Jon




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

I'm doing a lot of research on the Scythians these days and I found
Mark's post thought-provoking at a number of levels, so I thought I'd
shoot a few arrows of my own.

Warrior tends to make gamers focus on technology, because we play in a
technology driven system. Fair enough, because the rules work so well,
but I guess my first comment is that in an archery firefight between
Russian militia and Mongol professionals, I suspect the result is
somewhat fore-ordained, regardless of the range.

Sticking to the level of technology, however, I think it's worth
looking at the archeological evidence of Mongol arrowheads available to
us and working back to some ranges and tactics. A visit to any number
of commercial sites on the web (just google Mongol Arrowhead) will show
you hundreds, if not thousands of Mongol arrowheads with various
attributions and levels of authenticity. My impression (I'm not an
expert) is that, like the Scythians, the Mongols primarily used
tri-lobate arrowheads between 25mm and 65mm in length and between 20 and
30 mm wide. I own a few of these. They are very light, and the socket
for the arrow shaft is quite small. This is important, because it
suggests that the bulk of Mongol arrows (and I'm going here with the
commonest type, because the Mongols, like the Scythians, had dozens of
arrow shapes) was a light, cane-shafted (according to Herodotus and
varius Medieval sources) flight arrow. This light arrow, shot from a
recurve composite bow, would probably go immense distances, especially
with the wind at your back.
The problem is that, because they are quite light, they would not
necessarily have much power at the end of their flight. By contrast,
the English longbow shot a long, heavy arrow with a heavy point; again,
good examples can be found on the Internet. Even with a wind advantage,
a six foot yew bow might (I repeat, might) not push such an arrow as far
as the recurve can shoot a light arrow, but it would have much more
'punch' in the last half of its trajectory.
Tacticallly, it's worth looking at our historical depictions of
horse archers. Right in front of me, for instance, I have the coin of
the Scythian King Ataias, who probably died fighting Phillip of Macedon
around 339 BC. I can compare this to various representations of the
Mongols in combat (mostly Chinese). Something they have in common is
that they are all pointing their bows either level or slightly down in
combat scenes. (I'll add a parenthetical challenge - show me a period
piece of art showing a steppe nomad shooting his bow above the horizon
that isn't a depiction of bird hunting. I can't find one, but that
doesn't mean they aren't there). This, coupled with the light flight
arrows, suggests to me that they commonly used their bows at very short
ranges, almost the way 18th C. cavalry used pistols. (This is the way
we know most Native Americans fought with bows on horseback in the 18th
and 19th Cs). I'm sure that the Scythians and Mongols both made use of
distance archery; a volley from 3-400 meters with the wind at your back
before launching a charge would be intimidating; but the actual
effectiveness of such a shot is open to question.
Somewhere in this house I have a contemporary description of
Turkish elite cavalry having a Gymkhana in the 15th C. I can't find it
to add scholarly proof to my assertion, but my memory is that they fired
at six targets, three on the right of the horse, and three on the left,
at a full gallop, and then shot two of the targets again after they
passed. My memory is that all of the targets were within a fairly small
space; perhaps fifty to sixty yards long, and directly in the path of
the horse. This would, tactically, bear out the idea that the bow was
primarily a close in weapon.
On another level, I am not an expert archer, but I am an
enthusiastic one. My impression is that a strong wind can be more
important than any amount of technology in pushing arrows.
BUT... there's another important consideration in Mark's post.
Not all archers were created equal. I've always found it odd that all
archers, regardless of morale class, fire equally well (except those
poor Irr. E guys and gals). Anyone in Warrior with a longbow is a
"Longbowman". Any skirmisher, peasant, or hunter with a bow is just
"bow." (Ditto slings.) Yet contemporary battle accounts make clear
that small numbers of professional archers and slingers could devestate
much larger formations of inexperienced archers. In once case
(Xenophon's Anabasis) less than 300 Scythian and Cretan archers "shoot
off" up to ten times their numbers of Persian skirmishers. Xenophon
takes for granted that this should be the case and doesn't even remark
(as he often does in infantry battles) about the disparity in numbers.
Most Classical and Hellenistic generals felt that a few professional
missile troops were much better than a cloud of amateurs. I think Henry
V and the Black Prince would have agreed.
Finally, one of the "list rules" I would crave for the Scythians
(and the Mongols, but not the Huns) is something giving them a shooting
fatigue advantage. We know from art and archeology that the Scythian
"Gorytos" quiver would hold forty to sixty arrows, up to two bows, and
reserve strings. We also know that most archers wore two. Much the
same is known about the Mongols.
We know a good deal about the arrow ressuply problems of the English in
the 100 Years war. By contrast, the average drafted amateur skirmisher
had only his own arrows, without the ability to shoot arrows made for
another bow (neccesarily); and there's reason the believe that most
archers carried only 15-20 arrows. One of the largest advantages of
being a horse archer is that the horse can carry a larger ammunition
supply. (NB Sarmatian and Hunnic graves that I'm familiar with don't
have these vast stocks of arrows, or the big quivers to hold them,
indicating more ammo supply problems). My solution would be to give the
Scythians, Mongols, and any other people with the evidence to back it up
2 or 3 more points of shooting fatigue.
One last bit of research. Many Scythian graves (and all "Sedentary
Scythians" graves, ie the guys who served on foot) hold both bow and
arrows, AND lead slingstones (the slings probably long since rotted
away.) Most ancient authors believed that slings were better for long
range shooting than bows. Hmmm. How do you represent THAT in warrior?
(Irr. C LMI JLS or 2HCW, S, B, sh. I don't think that would be too
popular, somehow)

Hope this helps.

Chris Cameron


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 1/20/2005 20:28:28 Central Standard Time,
yapisu2003@... writes:

>>>Finally, one of the "list rules" I would crave for the Scythians
(and the Mongols, but not the Huns) is something giving them a
shooting fatigue advantage<<<

I second this suggestion.>>


Oriental Warrior is at the printers and the Mongols do not have this list
rule - although I did consider and playtest it. I think you'll find the list
rules take care of Mongol tactics quite nicely as they stand...

This is also on the list to consider for Skythians, but no promises.

J







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

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Christian and Sarah
<cgc.sjw@s...> wrote:
... BUT... there's another important consideration in Mark's
post.
> Not all archers were created equal. I've always found it odd that
all
> archers, regardless of morale class, fire equally well (except
those
> poor Irr. E guys and gals). Anyone in Warrior with a longbow is a
> "Longbowman". Any skirmisher, peasant, or hunter with a bow is
just
> "bow." (Ditto slings.) Yet contemporary battle accounts make
clear
> that small numbers of professional archers and slingers could
devestate
> much larger formations of inexperienced archers.

I have always thought that units of, for instance English
longbowmen, should receive a list rule shooting +1 to dirrentiate
them from other longbowmen - they appear to have been inordinately
effective in the historical period, compared to say Ancient Indiam
longbowmen. this is not borne out in the shooting tables though.
There would be other examples, including perhaps the Mongols.

Muz

>>>Finally, one of the "list rules" I would crave for the Scythians
(and the Mongols, but not the Huns) is something giving them a
shooting fatigue advantage<<<

I second this suggestion.

The impression I've always gotten of the Mongols was that
organization and logistics (specifically multiple mounts per
warrior), as well as tactics, were instrumental to their success.

A list specific shooting fatigue advantage would seem to reflect this
logistical foresight, and the advantage it conveyed in implementing
the standard (as I understand it) Mongol tactical objective of
wearing down an opponent before coming to blows.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 1/21/2005 19:45:34 Central Standard Time,
cgc.sjw@... writes:

All part of my argument that JLS (but not L) armed EHC, whether
Bleyme or Arthurian or Scythian, should be allowed to skirmish.>>


Not decided yet..... stay tuned.

J








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

Two nice bits of data appeared today.

One is a 4th Century BC metal vase that depicts Scythians hunting. One
of the Scythians is shooting an animal at the feet of his galloping
horse, leaning well over for the shot; just like a Plains Indian
shooting buffalo. Range as depicted looks like about three feet. I'd
argue that since hunting and Bushkasi were the Scythian methods of
practicing for war, the "doctrine" of the hunt was the "doctrine" of war.

On the other hand, the other tidbit is an inscription from a set of
games held at Olbia (Greek City State, Scythian Ally on the Black Sea)
from about 450BC that states that Anaxagoras (almost certainly a
Scythian name from context) won the distance archery competition with a
shot of 1640 feet. Of course, this shot was almost certainly made
dismounted; further, Anaxagoras may well have been a Greco-Scythian
since only "Greeks" were usually admitted to festival games. Still a
nice long shot that indicay=tes that distance archery was valued.

[Todd Schneider]

Are you inferring that ever English longbowman at Agincourt selected a
target before he fired?

Or did he just Aim fior the mass of the enemy?

Todd

Christian and Sarah wrote:

>
> Two nice bits of data appeared today.
>
> One is a 4th Century BC metal vase that depicts Scythians hunting. One
> of the Scythians is shooting an animal at the feet of his galloping
> horse, leaning well over for the shot; just like a Plains Indian
> shooting buffalo. Range as depicted looks like about three feet. I'd
> argue that since hunting and Bushkasi were the Scythian methods of
> practicing for war, the "doctrine" of the hunt was the "doctrine" of war.
>
> On the other hand, the other tidbit is an inscription from a set of
> games held at Olbia (Greek City State, Scythian Ally on the Black Sea)
> from about 450BC that states that Anaxagoras (almost certainly a
> Scythian name from context) won the distance archery competition with a
> shot of 1640 feet. Of course, this shot was almost certainly made
> dismounted; further, Anaxagoras may well have been a Greco-Scythian
> since only "Greeks" were usually admitted to festival games. Still a
> nice long shot that indicay=tes that distance archery was valued.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Yahoo! Groups Links*
>
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>

I'm not sure this question was directed at me, but I wrote my thesis on
the indenture service of retinue archers in the 100 Years War and I
think I know a bit. Every archer did not choose a target - we know
this. In fact, even in an all veteran retinue like Oxford's in the late
14th C., there were Master Archers (paid as such) whose duty it was to
"choose the shot". The other archers would raise their bows to whatever
height the Master chose and shoot along his line, in effect, firing a
volley into a box (just as Jon said.) Since I wrote my thesis, some
Brits have done really, really wonderful stuff with arrowhead
distribution at Towton and several other battlefields. I'm in Classical
stuff now, but my understanding is that the arrowhead distribution is
VERY even and bears out the "area volley" concept.
Of course, even without aimed fire (and there was some in the late
portions of a charge, I think) the highly skilled and disciplined
nature of the English Archers must have been a cut above anything else
around.
Since the Mongols and Scythians spent a lot of time useing hunts to
practice war on an epic scale, they must have worked to overcome the
wasted shot problem of too many aimed shots.

Finally, Jon (et al) while we're on list rules, why is it that EHC
can't skirmish? I can understand EHC Tagmata or Sarmations not
skirmishing; the lance indicates a certain eagerness for close combat.
But JLS armed EHC are placed in a very difficult position in the warrior
universe. And compared to the weight of the rider, 40 pounds of
Lamellar (top end weight, really; less for horn scale, etc) is certainly
not going to slow the horse.
I mention this because horse armor is so darned common in Scythian
noble graves, even in the 6th C. BC. Yet they all seem to have skirmished.

Seems to me that another Steppe nomad advantage is the re-mount.
Scythians (and Sarmations, Alans, Pechnegs... I could go on) seem to
have gone by unit (or tribe or what have you) to the horse herd to
change horses. I doubt most nobles had 2 sets of horse armor, but that
doesn't change the fact that they had the option to tire a horse out and
then get a new one. In fact, several pieces of classical art from
Scythian graves show scenes late in battles where riders have no saddle
at all; clearly a remount, and remounts were so common as to be a theme
in art!

All part of my argument that JLS (but not L) armed EHC, whether
Bleyme or Arthurian or Scythian, should be allowed to skirmish.

>
>