Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

Quoting "WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com" <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>:

> Message: 13
> Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 22:20:08 -0400
> From: "Allan Lougheed" <redcoat24@...>
> Subject: Re: skirmishing: not a rules question
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> For what my History BA with a smattering of Medieval and Renaissance courses
> is worth (not much really , I cant think of a single instance of English
> Longbowmen ever evading a charge. On the other hand, I have to admit to
> myself that English longbowmen never had to fight The Sultan of Delhi and
> his double decker elephants, or Genghis Khan. If the English had been in a
> protracted war with either of them, perhaps their tactics would change? The
> tactics they used against the French knights were clearly good enough for
> them. They did not need to evade so why bother?

Well, lots of us took an interest in history based on a desire to ponder
intriguing "what if" questions. But I'd like to shy away from that in this
discussion, at least for now. We can't speculate about "what if" if we don't
know the basics of "what happened".

So if, in fact, longbowmen never evaded, then that'd be a strong argument for
not giving them that game capability. The question is, what's the fact of the
matter? So far, no one has been able to come up with a compelling example of
longbowmen evading.

>
> For example, the average person thinks that in the War of Independence,
> British Regulars lined up shoulder to shoulder and got shot up for being to
> stupid to change their ways. As Historians, we know things are not so simple
> as Hollywood would have us believe. North America posed unique challenges
> that made linear warfare practical in some cases and not in others. Tactics
> used in North America had been evolving since before the Seven Years War,
> and both sides benefited from that experience. I won't go into why the
> British lost the war, but both sides won some battles and lost some battles
> didn't they?

I'm well acquainted with the myths and realities of 18th century warfare. Anyone
who has seen the inaccuracy and unreliability of a musket first hand
understands that the British multi-rank volley fire was a powerful weapon used
correctly, not a silly Europeanism that us Yanks exploited. And anyone who has
witnessed how long it takes a musket to reload understands that after the
initial volley it made sense to adopt a maneuver of drop to the rear and
reload, then circle to the front and shoot. What we would call skirmish.

Those, however, are tactical nuances of a very particular period of gunpowder
warfare. They have no consistent analog in the pre-gunpowder period.

There's a persistent "urban legend" that Phil Barker cribbed WRG from another
set of miniatures rules for a gunpowder era. I haven't generally put too much
stock in those rumors, but there are occaisional oddities like the skirmish
rules that really make me wonder some times if i should give the rumors more
credence.

>
> I do however think that "Evading", as an organized battlefield manoeuvre, is
> something that should mostly be done by light troops. There is a big
> distinction to be made between evading and retreating.

I agree, and would take it a step further by saying that the ability to evade is
what _defines_ light troops.

>
> I don't want to take everything away from what you are saying. I will say
> that the rules leave the distinction between these battlefield roles a
> little (A lot?) fuzzy.
>
> Do we agree on that Mark?
>

I don't think we disagree very much. I'm really trying to focus on the actual
(not hypothetical) history, and on the facts rather than the rules. I think
it's hard to have a debate about rules and possible x-rules if we don't even
have consensus on what actually happened on the battlefield.

>
> Well based on my earlier post, how's this for an X-Rule;
>
> When troops other than Light Troops are Evading a charge, for what ever
> reason no matter how noble or advantageous, this is a cause of Unease and
> also requires a waiver check.
>

Gee, that actually has some merit. I'll have to think that one over a bit.

> Message: 17
> Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 22:23:08 -0700 (PDT)
> From: kelly wilkinson <jwilkinson62@...>
> Subject: Re: skirmishing: not a rules question
>
> Mark,
> I do recall that Baccides (pardon me for the spelling), the Seleucid
> general who defeated Judas Maccabeus, had his men feign a flight from Judas'
> Guard Cav drawing him into a trap and his death.
>

Kelly, that may well be. You'll note, though that I specifically framed my
question to with regards to 300 AD - 1500 AD; well outside the Seleucid period.
That was deliberate, because I don't know that much about pre-Roman (or even
Republican Roman) warfare, and because I do in fact think that tactical
knowledge and discipline can be lost over time. There is a reason why we call
them the "Dark Ages".


> Message: 20
> Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 07:55:48 -0000
> From: "Adrian Williams" <fredthebaddy@...>
> Subject: Practical World was Re: Skirmishing
>
> I really like skirmishing as it is. I see the issue primarily as one
> of troop classification.
>
> If you think English Longbowmen couldn't skirmish, run them as MI
>

So, here's the problem. Absolutely, beyond any doubt, there were longbowmen who
were capable of entering/crossing rough terrain without becoming disordered.
They did it at Poitier, Najera, and Agincourt. So classifying them all as MI or
HI would be ahistorical. The problem is that the same characteristic that
enables them to handle rough terrain -- being LMI or LHI -- also enables them
to evade. So what I'm looking for is either evidence that they did evade, or
some way of decoupling being loose order from being evade-capable.

By the way, all these same quandries apply to Mamelukes, as far as I can tell.
Show me a Saracen horseman engaging in a feigned flight, and I'll show you a
light cavalryman. To a man (and horse), it appears that Mamelukes waited for
the feigned flight to play out, and then charged in. I just can't find any
evidence of an evade by Saracen HC.


-Mark Stone