Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Gents,

The last two days contained Outstanding Discussion! BRAVO!

Almost done with a 25mm EIR Army, well I thought I was. Now I have
to get some artillery mule carts Anyone know a good source that
may fit with Newline figures ? (hamata, no helmet plumes)

I had about 8-10 games in 15mm with the "older" system before
interpretation frustration got the best of me. I've been lurking
here since because I thought this was the best system for ancient
tactical feel. All of my games were with LIR. The only way I found
to deal with SHK/EHK was small detachments of S/SS armed LI. If I
remember correctly, there's only 6 EE available, so where they
were in the formation was important. They run out at sling up the
knights and do not skirmish. The knights will break them for sure,
but will also chase the little beggers right into the midst of the
legionaries. Oh, make a hole for the LI to rout through...that
seemed to really help. The open flank would get a large unit of
Fundatores (Reg D) to help the LC hunter/killers (4 EE Reg LC paired
with 6EE Huns). It helps to get a terrain flank for the LHI anchor.
Put enough weight in the terrain to own it, at which I normally
failed. Not that I was very successful with the above, but at least
it was a plan.

Does anyone know of any accounts where cavalry physically impacted on
well ordered formed foot whom stood firm to receive them? I find
this fascinating and think it would have been an awesome sight.

The historical texts are gems. I read a ton of books on the Republic
and Empire and came to the conclusion that the old saying
"opinions are like <censored>; everybody's got one" is
true. I figured to go to the sources and see what they really have
to say. Looking at what the different histories relate over time -
applying natural and physical laws, and maybe some military common
sense (?!) to come up with what is plausible and what is not. I
think if anyone out there approaches the sources in this fashion, it
may open many more doors than reading 3rd or 4th generation
interpretations of the histories. Have fun with it! (I don't
drink much beer anymore and my wife won't let me chase girls, so
my fun these days is limited to my cave).

Back to EIR thoughts.
Most likely no difference between manipular exchange or cohort
replacement. Cohort organization was just better at it as a Tribune
usually had 2 units to handle instead of a corresponding 12 centuries
or 6 independent maniples. After maybe 10 minutes or so of HTH both
sides were probably exhausted and separated for a breather. This is
when the second echelon of cohorts or maniples pass through the first
and execute their 4 classic shocks to the opposing infantry. The 3rd
and/or 4th echelons repeated the process, not giving their opponents
any respite. Psychological impact counted at least as well as the
physical. The passing thru should not have been difficult at all.
The Roman infantry usually fought in depths of 3's and 6's or
4s and 8s, depending on their opponents/terrain. The battle drill
would give a big edge over the "barbarian" type armies who
would have big trouble attempting to move or re-adjust their
infantry. "Barbarian" infantry probably didn't hang
around for the full second round against a cohort sized mass. Fights
in this fashion would be real nasty in civil wars. Lastly, I believe
cohorts were just the evolution of the manipular system. Each cohort
retained the maniples in name and function, but fought as a larger
collective team (Polybius does not describe the actual
"organization" of the infantry. I think he mentioned that
the Romans call the 3 lines a cohors. My interest is re-piqued, and
I'll go back and look at Poly this weekend if my wife lets me).

Can I cite one reference that states all the above..nope. There
are just pieces of the puzzle.
Apologies for the long posting.

Regards,
Fred

Integris: "The heart and the armor are one"

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@y..., "scudzo2001" <scud@j...> wrote:
> Does anyone know of any accounts where cavalry physically impacted
on
> well ordered formed foot whom stood firm to receive them? I find
> this fascinating and think it would have been an awesome sight.

So-called "experts" aside, my experience as a horse rider and owner
suggests that horses will indeed charge solid infantry - but I do not
intend to personally try it on _my_ horses any time soon so this is
debatable.

I have seen two charging bodies of cavalry at a civil war re-enactment
hit each other head on at the gallop - it happens a lot between
better-drilled or at least more confident units. I remember once two
guys crashed into each other so hard one of their horses hit the
ground stunned and couldn't get up for a couple minutes - had
everyone pretty worried. That said mounted charge and counter charge
is usually like a game of chicken - as indeed are most things
involving horses for some reason. But it is one of the riders' nerves
that will usually give out first. Aggressive rider = aggressive horse.

I have also seen whooped up _riderless_ horses bash right through a
solid fence - on more than one occassion. And I have heard of horses
impaling themselves on a fence board which has come loose at one end.

And in battle in a herd environment where horses have been drilled as
a small unit daily, with the blood up and maybe even an injured
semi-panicked horse being spurred ruthlessly...

Horse, rider and equipment is 3/4 ton - comparable to a small
automobile in weight though with less force behind it (still...). A
trot is only 6-7 mph but a controlled canter is maybe 12 mph. An
all-out charge might be a bit more but I doubt it went in at much more
than a canter without stirrups. That's a lot of weight and a decent
speed - and a horse is more strong than fast. No 4-8 people are going
to block its path without getting knocked over. It takes a spear butt
in the ground or you have make the rider chicken to do it.

Just my 2 cents though.

At 1:43 AM +0000 5/10/02, scudzo2001 wrote:
>
>Does anyone know of any accounts where cavalry physically impacted on
>well ordered formed foot whom stood firm to receive them? I find
>this fascinating and think it would have been an awesome sight.

The only recorded instance in history, and relatively modern at that,
is the engagement at Hernandez Garcia in 1813 or 18184.

Three veteran French Infantry battalions were caught by three
regiments of the British King's German Legion Dragoons.

The three battalions formed square. The first square delivered an
ill-timed volley, killing several riders and horses of the KGL, one
of which careened into the side of the square. The KGL Dragoons
exploited this opening. The square dissolved. The KGL Dragoons chased
the surviving infantry to the second square, which then collapsed as
the fleeing infantry interpenetrated their formation.

The KGL Dragoons swept through the second dissolving square onto the
third, which promptly wavered in the face of the disaster, and was
ridden down by the cavalry.

Unless the infantry is caught on the flank or rear or wavers, where
the riders can get to the infantry, there is no reason to expect that
cavalry can close and engage in "shock" combat. They will at best try
to shoot, or strike with their hand weapons. If the infantry stand
firm the cavalry will have to stand off.

The interpenetration of cavalry bodies is well documented in recent
times. Shock is not shock combat. Cavalry will normally
interpenetrate the opposing formation of cavalry. The horses and
riders will not want to impale or run up on solid infantry with sharp
pointy things in their hands.

Scott Turner

[John Murphy]

Hi Scott Turner,

I have heard the story below on several occassions, so I am sure
that it is something with a lot of intellectual weight behind it. But
my guess is no one living has witnessed a cavalry charge into formed
steady infantry first hand - wether it made contact or not.
There are, however things in the modern world that come pretty
close.
Based on these, which is the best I can do and is in some ways
better and in some ways worse than the ivory tower folks, I would
argue that this is actually in the category of an "urban legend" -
something incorrect but that nobody will dispute and hence to remain
accepted as fact. That is, seemingly, just my own opinion. Not many
folks are willing to show what idiots they are. But the choir has had
to revise their tune before so there is hope.
And remember this is someone building EIR saying this!
I am cutting my input off here because folks are getting sick of
hearing from me rambling on, but I would hope it really shouldn't take
much searching to disprove this in a pre-Napoleonic source with hard
evidence.

- John Murphy

--- In WarriorRules@y..., quills@a... wrote:
> The only recorded instance in history, and relatively modern at
that,
> is the engagement at Hernandez Garcia in 1813 or 18184.
> Unless the infantry is caught on the flank or rear or wavers, where
> the riders can get to the infantry, there is no reason to expect
that
> cavalry can close and engage in "shock" combat. They will at best
try
> to shoot, or strike with their hand weapons. If the infantry stand
> firm the cavalry will have to stand off.
>
> The interpenetration of cavalry bodies is well documented in recent
> times. Shock is not shock combat. Cavalry will normally
> interpenetrate the opposing formation of cavalry. The horses and
> riders will not want to impale or run up on solid infantry with
sharp
> pointy things in their hands.

--- In WarriorRules@y..., "rollsup3" <jjmurphy@s...> wrote:
> Hi Scott Turner,
>
> I have heard the story below on several occassions,
> - John Murphy
>
> --- In WarriorRules@y..., quills@a... wrote:
> > The only recorded instance in history, and relatively modern at
> that

I've heard of this instance too, but wasn't aware they hit a second
square.

Graci,
Fred

--- In WarriorRules@y..., "rollsup3" <jjmurphy@s...> wrote:
> --- In WarriorRules@y..., "scudzo2001" <scud@j...> wrote:
> > Does anyone know of any accounts where cavalry physically
impacted on well ordered formed foot whom stood firm to receive
them? I find this fascinating and think it would have been an
awesome sight.
>
> So-called "experts" aside, my experience as a horse rider and owner
> suggests that horses will indeed charge solid infantry - but I do
not > intend to personally try it on _my_ horses any time soon so
this is debatable.
>
> Horse, rider and equipment is 3/4 ton - comparable to a small
> automobile in weight though with less force behind it (still...). A
> trot is only 6-7 mph but a controlled canter is maybe 12 mph. An
> all-out charge might be a bit more but I doubt it went in at much
more than a canter without stirrups. That's a lot of weight and a
decent speed - and a horse is more strong than fast. No 4-8 people
are going to block its path without getting knocked over. It takes a
spear butt in the ground or you have make the rider chicken to do it.

----------------
Good Info,

Just for fun.
My physics is about as rusty as my understanding of Livy..

Assuming no friction and a simple elastic interaction, the cantering
horse above would impart enough work to move the infantry about 9
meters to the rear. With variables and a few assumptions thrown in,
the horse would expend all energy at about the 4th legionaire depth.
Will most likely lose its rider's mass, who would find himself in
about the 7th row of the legionaire Mosh Pit.

I want to see this scene in Gladiator II :)

The legionnaire tactic of pressing forward with their shields were
probably not to brace for the impact, but to make sure the front guys
couldn't run away!

I can see it clearly as the cav advances....
"Hey Decurion, could you hold my shield while I go take a leak?
Just stand here until I get back."

Thanks for making me think,
Fred

Ok guys,

Remember that most of the ancient armies are not using stirrups, and
this does make a difference in combat. The main difference being that
the seat is not that secure for hand-to-hand combat. Also remember
that if you are going to use lances, and "shock combat" without the
large saddle to brace the combatant, he will probably not remain
seated.

Stirupps are vital for good seats when hacking down at a lower target.

The most effective cavalry versus infantry other than light infantry,
are caparisoned or armored cavalry. The big drawback being that more
infantry can fight on the same front that the horse occupies.

Most lance enconters evolved into jabbing the lance at the infantry.
If they are in a solid mass, are fairly well trained, then the
horseman is disadvantaged very quickly. If they penetrate the
infantry formation they are surrounded, someone will likely stab them
from behind, hamstring the horse, or pull them off.

Cavalry do not like this.

Scott


At 2:46 AM +0000 5/11/02, scudzo2001 wrote:
>--- In WarriorRules@y..., "rollsup3" <jjmurphy@s...> wrote:
>> --- In WarriorRules@y..., "scudzo2001" <scud@j...> wrote:
>> > Does anyone know of any accounts where cavalry physically
>impacted on well ordered formed foot whom stood firm to receive
>them? I find this fascinating and think it would have been an
>awesome sight.
>>
>> So-called "experts" aside, my experience as a horse rider and owner
>> suggests that horses will indeed charge solid infantry - but I do
>not > intend to personally try it on _my_ horses any time soon so
>this is debatable.
>>
>> Horse, rider and equipment is 3/4 ton - comparable to a small
>> automobile in weight though with less force behind it (still...). A
>> trot is only 6-7 mph but a controlled canter is maybe 12 mph. An
>> all-out charge might be a bit more but I doubt it went in at much
>more than a canter without stirrups. That's a lot of weight and a
>decent speed - and a horse is more strong than fast. No 4-8 people
>are going to block its path without getting knocked over. It takes a
>spear butt in the ground or you have make the rider chicken to do it.
>
>----------------
>Good Info,
>
>Just for fun.
>My physics is about as rusty as my understanding of Livy..
>
>Assuming no friction and a simple elastic interaction, the cantering
>horse above would impart enough work to move the infantry about 9
>meters to the rear. With variables and a few assumptions thrown in,
>the horse would expend all energy at about the 4th legionaire depth.
>Will most likely lose its rider's mass, who would find himself in
>about the 7th row of the legionaire Mosh Pit.
>
>I want to see this scene in Gladiator II
>
>The legionnaire tactic of pressing forward with their shields were
>probably not to brace for the impact, but to make sure the front guys
>couldn't run away!
>
>I can see it clearly as the cav advances....
>"Hey Decurion, could you hold my shield while I go take a leak?
>Just stand here until I get back."
>
>Thanks for making me think,
>Fred
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>ADVERTISEMENT
><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.2053425.3521449.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705059080:\nHM/A=1046314/R=1/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code=3225>
>Height: 4 5 6 7 ft 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 in Weight: Sex: F M
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.

The closest we are likely to get in modern times is mounted police
using their horses to scatter groups of rioters/ protesters. Can
these groups be thought of as a "steady" opponent however? There may
be incidents of such mounted units actually riding into well organised
(steady) groups of protesters or an alternative source of information
could be police training institutions where they do simulate civil
disorder to train police in riot tactics including the horses I
suspect. I am not sure where you would go to find this sort of
information however.

Adam



--- In WarriorRules@y..., "rollsup3" <jjmurphy@s...> wrote:
> Hi Scott Turner,
>
> I have heard the story below on several occassions, so I am sure
> that it is something with a lot of intellectual weight behind it.
But
> my guess is no one living has witnessed a cavalry charge into
formed
> steady infantry first hand - wether it made contact or not.
> There are, however things in the modern world that come pretty
> close.
> Based on these, which is the best I can do and is in some ways
> better and in some ways worse than the ivory tower folks, I would
> argue that this is actually in the category of an "urban legend" -
> something incorrect but that nobody will dispute and hence to
remain
> accepted as fact. That is, seemingly, just my own opinion. Not many
> folks are willing to show what idiots they are. But the choir has
had
> to revise their tune before so there is hope.
> And remember this is someone building EIR saying this!
> I am cutting my input off here because folks are getting sick of
> hearing from me rambling on, but I would hope it really shouldn't
take
> much searching to disprove this in a pre-Napoleonic source with
hard
> evidence.
>
> - John Murphy
>
> --- In WarriorRules@y..., quills@a... wrote:
> > The only recorded instance in history, and relatively modern at
> that,
> > is the engagement at Hernandez Garcia in 1813 or 18184.
> > Unless the infantry is caught on the flank or rear or wavers,
where
> > the riders can get to the infantry, there is no reason to expect
> that
> > cavalry can close and engage in "shock" combat. They will at best
> try
> > to shoot, or strike with their hand weapons. If the infantry
stand
> > firm the cavalry will have to stand off.
> >
> > The interpenetration of cavalry bodies is well documented in
recent
> > times. Shock is not shock combat. Cavalry will normally
> > interpenetrate the opposing formation of cavalry. The horses and
> > riders will not want to impale or run up on solid infantry with
> sharp
> > pointy things in their hands.