Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 7/4/2003 09:59:42 Central Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:

> How does this change for the regulars?

I think Greg's issue is that being regulars, they will take an impetuous foot
charge at a halt and therefore lose the +1 for charging. - hence his
recommended list rule permitting them to always countercharge foot.

What we need is some history on who they fought and beat *soundly* and
*routinely*.


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

[John Murphy]

Has anyone actually had this experience playing them? Please elaborate
since I am adding them to my Early Nik Byz tourney list.

When I run the numbers for Reg A mtd EHI 2HCW, Sh with a list rule for
1.5 ranks they really seem to be pretty powerful (albeit expensive)
troops.

I have some, limited, experience using the irregs in a tourney. They
almost never got caught flat-footed and got the 1.5 ranks except in 2nd+
bound of hth which, also becoming shieldless at that point and suffering
the 2 fatigue per CPF, is not a good thing for them.

How does this change for the regulars? I would think being EHI instead
of LHI would make it less likely to be caught flat (not having the risk
of the tanked waver against mounted).

So please elaborate on this concern for my benefit and also indicate if
it based on tourney experience or just the kind of mental exercise I
have gone through.

I guess if one was leaving them as HI or LHI they would not be as good
as the irregs (?).

From: gar@...
Is there any chance that anyone would agree that the Regular Varangian
Guard
needs some love? This is an old topic with me, but when you try to use
these
guys with anything approaching historical tactics, you tend to get your
butt
kicked by half-naked guys with short sticks.
To me, these guys got lost in the arms race of TOG 7.6. Scott gave them
1.5
ranks when charging/counter-charging but the fact of the matter is that
against
historical opponents, nine times out of ten (more really), they are
fighting
flat-footed. Some lists give them JLS back ranks, which is a solution
that
seems to defy anything you read in any history book.
What about something like ...
List Rule: STEADY Regular A & B moral Varangian Guardsmen may always
counter-
charge enemy foot, and get 1.5 ranks at first contact with enemy
mounted.
List Rule: STEADY Regular A & B moral Varangian Guardsmen never count
shieldless. This may actually have some historical basis, as they were
trained
to fight as a coordinated wall of axes, not really trying to turn the
fight
into a mass one-on-one melee.

[Kelly Wilkinson]

After having read "Byzantium", by Romilly Jenkins, I'm quite sure that most of
their opponents were Byzantines! LOL! The Byzantines seem to have had more than
their share of internal strife! After all, it was an army mostly made up of
Varrangians that put Basil II back into power the first time his authority was
challenged. These were undefeated and feared by their opposition for their
reputation in their campaign under Basil's leadership to restore him.
Kelly

JonCleaves@... wrote:
In a message dated 7/4/2003 09:59:42 Central Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:

> How does this change for the regulars?

I think Greg's issue is that being regulars, they will take an impetuous foot
charge at a halt and therefore lose the +1 for charging. - hence his
recommended list rule permitting them to always countercharge foot.

What we need is some history on who they fought and beat *soundly* and
*routinely*.


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


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

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



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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Another question that can be answered by Paul, at Durazzo, were the Norman
knights that were initially routed by the Varangians caught standing or were
they mutually charging each other? If the latter were the case, how could this
be simulated in Warrior? Just a thought.
Kelly

JonCleaves@... wrote:
In a message dated 7/4/2003 09:59:42 Central Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:

> How does this change for the regulars?

I think Greg's issue is that being regulars, they will take an impetuous foot
charge at a halt and therefore lose the +1 for charging. - hence his
recommended list rule permitting them to always countercharge foot.

What we need is some history on who they fought and beat *soundly* and
*routinely*.


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


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

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



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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

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

[Paul Georgian]

In a message dated 7/5/2003 8:27:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@...> writes:

> Another question that can be answered by Paul, at Durazzo, were the Norman
> knights that were initially routed by the Varangians caught standing or were
> they mutually charging each other? If the latter were the case, how could
> this be simulated in Warrior? Just a thought.

According to Anna, the Normans had charged the section of the Byzantine line
where the Varangians were posted and had been routed. The Varangians (mostly
Anglo Saxon nobles at this point) pursued too far beyond the Byzantine lines.
Most authorities accept this description.

Paul G.


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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Paul, Were the Normans HC or HK? Further, you note that these Varangians were
Anglo-Saxons. How did the Huscarles at Hastings fare when faced by Norman
Knights? Perhaps this is weapon issue? I know that Terry Gore increase the
damage done by certain axes to reflect the medieval Axeman's performance verses
knights. I think you can see where I'm going here...!

Kelly

PaulByzan@... wrote:
In a message dated 7/5/2003 8:27:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@...> writes:

> Another question that can be answered by Paul, at Durazzo, were the Norman
> knights that were initially routed by the Varangians caught standing or were
> they mutually charging each other? If the latter were the case, how could
> this be simulated in Warrior? Just a thought.

According to Anna, the Normans had charged the section of the Byzantine line
where the Varangians were posted and had been routed. The Varangians (mostly
Anglo Saxon nobles at this point) pursued too far beyond the Byzantine lines.
Most authorities accept this description.

Paul G.


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


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



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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

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

[Paul Georgian]

In a message dated 7/7/2003 8:48:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@...> writes:

> Paul, Were the Normans HC or HK? Further, you note that these Varangians
> were Anglo-Saxons. How did the Huscarles at Hastings fare when faced by Norman
> Knights? Perhaps this is weapon issue? I know that Terry Gore increase the
> damage done by certain axes to reflect the medieval Axeman's performance
verses
> knights. I think you can see where I'm going here...!

Uh huh! OK, now Kelly, stay with me. Deep breath. Now repeat after me.
"It's only a game, it's only a game" Keep saying it until it sticks. LOL.
Now ,how in the name of holy will anyone ever know whether Norman horsemen in
a historical description by a historian who never saw an arrow fired in anger
was an HC or HK. Those classifications never existed in reality. It's a
game affectation and as far as I can tell based on the rules, one year Normans
and other western cavalry were merely HC and when the next year showed up they
were HK. I'm just funnin' with ya, but the answer is no one knows and no one
will ever know.

Now as far as the tactical situation of Hastings/Durazzo they are almost
identical. When the Huscarles/Varangians hold steady they drive the Norman
cavalry away. The difference is at Durazzo the Varangians separated themselves
from
the rest of the Byzantine battleline and got isolated and surrounded (not so
different from the fate of those Saxons who pursued the Norman flight at
Hastings, however).

Paul G.


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

[Mark Mallard]

An interesting article on the battle of Durazzo

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1373/8_49/55481501/print.jhtml


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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

LOL!
Paul,
So then in each case, the choppers stood up very well and in both instances
of Hastings and Durazzo only died because they left the battle lines because
they were following knights that they had routed? How often can this happen in
Warrior to mirror this kind of result Where it turns into a push with the edge
going to the Medieval Axeman? Do you know of any other situations like this?


Kelly

PaulByzan@... wrote:
In a message dated 7/7/2003 8:48:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@...> writes:

> Paul, Were the Normans HC or HK? Further, you note that these Varangians
> were Anglo-Saxons. How did the Huscarles at Hastings fare when faced by Norman
> Knights? Perhaps this is weapon issue? I know that Terry Gore increase the
> damage done by certain axes to reflect the medieval Axeman's performance
verses
> knights. I think you can see where I'm going here...!

Uh huh! OK, now Kelly, stay with me. Deep breath. Now repeat after me.
"It's only a game, it's only a game" Keep saying it until it sticks. LOL.
Now ,how in the name of holy will anyone ever know whether Norman horsemen in
a historical description by a historian who never saw an arrow fired in anger
was an HC or HK. Those classifications never existed in reality. It's a
game affectation and as far as I can tell based on the rules, one year Normans
and other western cavalry were merely HC and when the next year showed up they
were HK. I'm just funnin' with ya, but the answer is no one knows and no one
will ever know.

Now as far as the tactical situation of Hastings/Durazzo they are almost
identical. When the Huscarles/Varangians hold steady they drive the Norman
cavalry away. The difference is at Durazzo the Varangians separated themselves
from
the rest of the Byzantine battleline and got isolated and surrounded (not so
different from the fate of those Saxons who pursued the Norman flight at
Hastings, however).

Paul G.


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


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

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



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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Paul,
Now I see how the Varangians could throw back their mounted foe so
consistently! They had archers to their rear! And the only way to simulate this
is in Warrior is to give them a similar ratio of bowmen or perhaps an ability to
have a detachment of bowmen as the other Byzantine foot! And since the
Varangians are Byzantine trained, it would also stand to reason that the
training would include standard infantry formations containing bowman. Hmmm...


"The Englishmen of the Varangian Guard, under Nampites, were ordered to dismount
and stand in front, no doubt forming their legendary `warhedge', with a strong
contingent of archers to their rear. There may have been veterans of Hastings
present, consciously re-enacting the events on Senlac Hill against a new Norman
foe."

Thanks Mark for the Excellent link. I will check out the Bibliographical info
and see what I can come up with! :)

Kelly


markmallard77@... wrote:
An interesting article on the battle of Durazzo

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1373/8_49/55481501/print.jhtml


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


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

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



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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

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

[scott holder]

Now ,how in the name of holy will anyone ever know whether Norman horsemen in
a historical description by a historian who never saw an arrow fired in anger
was an HC or HK. Those classifications never existed in reality. It's a
game affectation and as far as I can tell based on the rules, one year Normans
and other western cavalry were merely HC and when the next year showed up they
were HK.

>And that's almost literally how Bill and I treated this. It becomes clear that
by the time of the 1st Crusade, perhaps a small fraction of what we view as
traditional western European knights in the Norman/Frank tradition were adopting
some small additional body armor but when that exactly occurred simply can't be
determined. In general, let me repeat, in general, Bill and I used 1100 AD as
the cutoff date for *widespread* *potential* use of additional armor knowing
full well that any specific date is artificial at best and thus, you'll see a
few instances of it being allowed beforehand and not always being mandated
afterwards. Even then, you had a definite economic/social strata of its use,
ie. the old knight/sergeant thing. Moreover, poorer knights in this early
post-Norman conquest era, probably wouldn't have had the best panolpy than
others. And so on.

>Therefore, given FHE's general 1100 AD cutoff date (again, I use the word
*general*) for the move from HC to HK, the cav in question at Durazzo is
probably best classified as HC. Another general argument on why cav uparmored,
at least in the context we're discussing, was the western feudal leader's
exposure to masses of Middle Eastern bowfire. And that's only *beginning* to
occur during the last two decades of the 11th century as places like Durazzo.
So, if that general concept is a proper interpretation of the available
historical record, then the cav at Durazzo should undoubtedly be "only* HC since
the leaders involved hadn't really had lots of exposure to what I'm talking
about.

Scott

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Good point. Perhaps it was a combination of the archers to the rear of the
Varangians that added to their breaking of that Norman unit. I'm sure that the
fire they would have received would have contributed a great deal.
Kelly

"Holder, Scott" <Scott.Holder@...> wrote:
Now ,how in the name of holy will anyone ever know whether Norman horsemen in
a historical description by a historian who never saw an arrow fired in anger
was an HC or HK. Those classifications never existed in reality. It's a
game affectation and as far as I can tell based on the rules, one year Normans
and other western cavalry were merely HC and when the next year showed up they
were HK.

>And that's almost literally how Bill and I treated this. It becomes clear that
by the time of the 1st Crusade, perhaps a small fraction of what we view as
traditional western European knights in the Norman/Frank tradition were adopting
some small additional body armor but when that exactly occurred simply can't be
determined. In general, let me repeat, in general, Bill and I used 1100 AD as
the cutoff date for *widespread* *potential* use of additional armor knowing
full well that any specific date is artificial at best and thus, you'll see a
few instances of it being allowed beforehand and not always being mandated
afterwards. Even then, you had a definite economic/social strata of its use,
ie. the old knight/sergeant thing. Moreover, poorer knights in this early
post-Norman conquest era, probably wouldn't have had the best panolpy than
others. And so on.

>Therefore, given FHE's general 1100 AD cutoff date (again, I use the word
*general*) for the move from HC to HK, the cav in question at Durazzo is
probably best classified as HC. Another general argument on why cav uparmored,
at least in the context we're discussing, was the western feudal leader's
exposure to masses of Middle Eastern bowfire. And that's only *beginning* to
occur during the last two decades of the 11th century as places like Durazzo.
So, if that general concept is a proper interpretation of the available
historical record, then the cav at Durazzo should undoubtedly be "only* HC since
the leaders involved hadn't really had lots of exposure to what I'm talking
about.

Scott

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

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



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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

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