Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

I don't expect that Warrior gets everything just right historically, and even
with future refinements it still won't get everything just right. No game can,
and Warrior does a far better job than most in my opinion.

But before quibbling about the details of the skirmish rule -- not an entirely
fruitful exercise in any case -- I'd actually just like to understand the
history. So I'll put this out as an exercise in historical research to the list
members here:

Can anyone document a non-Roman, non-Mongol, non-light troop, between the period
300 AD and 1500 AD that has clearly engaged in a maneuver in a particular
battle that can best be captured in game terms as an evade (rather than a
counter, retirement, or rout followed by rally)?

I've looked closely at two periods: the first three Crusades, and the 100 Years'
War. I can't find any evidence that HC Mamelukes ever evaded. I can't find any
evidence that Engligh longbowmen ever evaded. I'd be happy to be proven wrong,
but I'm just not seeing the evidence.


-Mark Stone

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?

But then tactics are partly cultural, partly inspired, and partly gained
from bitter experience. We typically learn the hard way first, and then
adapt. It helps a great deal if your people survive long enough after first
contact with a new enemy to benefit from the lessons. Sometimes our
commanders are so gifted that they immediately seize upon the ideal way of
war for a given situation. We all know how often that happens.

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?

There is only one reason why British regulars could fight a Petite Guerre
along side Mohawk Allies against Revolutionary forces in New York. They
adapted. They still lost but they adapted. Of course, it was not the way
they preferred to fight, and certainly did not fit the typical mode of
European warfare. When it was over, the consensus was "Good! Now we can go
back to Europe and get back to real soldiering!"

I suppose my point, is that if you take English Longbowmen, and pit them
against a completely alien foe with their own ways of warfare, chances are
English tactics need to change. Take an army from 3000 BC, and fight an army
from 1500 AD, and something has to give. If you take tactical options away
from a player because it doesn't fit his army, you are eliminating
adaptation. I personally think you also take something away from Ancients
wargaming. There is a side of me that wonders why my Han Dynasty Chinese
want to fight Burgundian Ordnance. We could sit around and wait for someone
nearby to make up a Proper Hsiung-Nu army for me to destroy. On the other
hand I might be waiting a long time. I fight Hoplites most of the time and
believe me I have to adapt. Thankfully my army is highly adaptable.

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. That is not to say
that well drilled Regulars in a fighting line cannot skirmish if they are
trained to do so. It's just that when you see a fighting company of the Army
Line evade, I suspect most people around them will think a retreat is going
on. People expect Light Troops to evade, that's what they do best. English
Longbowmen are not what I would consider to be Light Troops. In my own
opinion, if they were to evade, who would be left holding the Line of
Battle? It wasn't their battlefield role to evade charges, their job was to
stand their ground and fight. I think that's the reason you don't ever see
them evading a charge.

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. Really, an army in Warrior is able to turn these
roles on a dime in the middle of the battle. Not a viable thing in real life
generally speaking, I think. A unit that starts a battle expecting to move
forward and drive the enemy from the field is in trouble if is suddenly
forced to run away. But on the other hand, if its part of the plan from the
beginning and the troops under stand this, maybe it's not a problem. In real
life those kind of tactics are pretty risky.

Do we agree on that Mark?

Allan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Stone" <mark@...>
To: "warrior" <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 3:30 PM
Subject: [WarriorRules] skirmishing: not a rules question


> I don't expect that Warrior gets everything just right historically, and
even
> with future refinements it still won't get everything just right. No game
can,
> and Warrior does a far better job than most in my opinion.
>
> But before quibbling about the details of the skirmish rule -- not an
entirely
> fruitful exercise in any case -- I'd actually just like to understand the
> history. So I'll put this out as an exercise in historical research to the
list
> members here:
>
> Can anyone document a non-Roman, non-Mongol, non-light troop, between the
period
> 300 AD and 1500 AD that has clearly engaged in a maneuver in a particular
> battle that can best be captured in game terms as an evade (rather than a
> counter, retirement, or rout followed by rally)?
>
> I've looked closely at two periods: the first three Crusades, and the 100
Years'
> War. I can't find any evidence that HC Mamelukes ever evaded. I can't find
any
> evidence that Engligh longbowmen ever evaded. I'd be happy to be proven
wrong,
> but I'm just not seeing the evidence.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

[Kelly Wilkinson]

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

Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:
I don't expect that Warrior gets everything just right historically, and even
with future refinements it still won't get everything just right. No game can,
and Warrior does a far better job than most in my opinion.

But before quibbling about the details of the skirmish rule -- not an entirely
fruitful exercise in any case -- I'd actually just like to understand the
history. So I'll put this out as an exercise in historical research to the list
members here:

Can anyone document a non-Roman, non-Mongol, non-light troop, between the period
300 AD and 1500 AD that has clearly engaged in a maneuver in a particular
battle that can best be captured in game terms as an evade (rather than a
counter, retirement, or rout followed by rally)?

I've looked closely at two periods: the first three Crusades, and the 100 Years'
War. I can't find any evidence that HC Mamelukes ever evaded. I can't find any
evidence that Engligh longbowmen ever evaded. I'd be happy to be proven wrong,
but I'm just not seeing the evidence.


-Mark Stone

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

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