yes we have bounced around this before. Yes its not straight forward to answer. BUT, I would like new opinions as to the differences between the two especially in terms of wargaming and history.
For me, the historical aspect is not clear cut and I will leave it to others* to argue the precedents or references at least. I just 'feel' (ie an opinion based on a few aspects none of which would hold up in a court of law!) that I ascribe to the following:
1. skirmisher infantry (different to skirmisher cavalry - another topic) were primarily part of the main infantry body and used in the lead up to the main event ie battle lines clashing. In this respect I am not convinced they operated far from their main lines and in certain circumstances would have been a detachment from the main infantry body ie they get 'reabsorbed' after performing their function of lobbing stuff at the opposition in an attempt to slow/break up/unsteady them
2. As to the point above, they could be armoured or unarmoured (to within reason obviously re the armoured version) so to call them 'Light' might be a misnomer
3. Light infantry were primarily lesser armoured infantry who could operate in a variety of guises and presumably able to cope with a variety of terrain better than their heavily armoured brethren. This would mean that they could potentially operate as skirmishers (in front as a screening force - see 1.), operate as scouting bodies/advance parties, used for fighting in difficult terrain and on occasion form up to operate as front line troops
The only tenuous (some very tenuous!) examples in history off the top of my head would be
- amongst others, references to Ekdromoi as 'runners out' from the hoplite body as lighter armoured troops who would chase off other skirmisher screens in Greek warfare (skirmishers who are part of their parent body)
- references to Harold's troops being lighter armoured for traipsing in the Welsh hills and valleys in the campaigns of the early 1060s ie coping with the terrain and type of warfare faced (light infantry able to cope with poor terrain but essentially battle line troop)
- A lack of sophisticated organisation and troop types/roles/army size/battlefield behaviour in tribal-not-professional armies especially wrt 'Dark Age Britain' circ 6th C onwards (ie all infantry was essentially battle line troops of which some could perform skirmisher screen duties who dashed out did the biz and ran back)
So in light (get it...?) of that I am leaning more and more to the infantry were either Heavy (armoured) or light (armoured) of which the likelihood was that the light (armoured) infantry could also provide skirmishing duties in front of the main line or operate in poor terrain when required. It certainly puts the cat amongst the pigeons with regards to my wargaming arrangements and rulesets...maybe time to go back to my own set of rules for a polish up?
* much cleverer and well read than me
I would say that skirmishing is what light infantry do, so there is no difference between LI and skirmishers, just different words for the same thing. But there was probably also (at various times) a type or class of infantry who were nippier than heavies, might have had missiles, and could do a bit of skirmishing or a bit of standing and fighting, as required. Call these LHI if you like :o
Concerning ekdromoi, I don't think these are a separate troop type; they are just hoplites tasked with a particular function (chasing off peltasts). They might have had lighter armour - there's no evidence - or they might just have been younger and fitter.
I guess part of the thrust of my post is to discern whether we have too many sub category troops on the table top. Certainly in regards to the lighter side of things
Where do you place peltasts?
Where do you place thureophorai?
So we get the parameters clear, they are often boundary marker units in any debate on skirmishers
Can I guess that the problem that Holly is struggling with here is that if these troops can at one moment skirmishers and in the next more bunched up as a fighting unit then we have basing problems and rule problems to show this flexibility with our physical but rigid models?
I think Richard is going in the right direction. Skirmishing is a function. It has its own characteristics, like freer movement and looser formations. It is up to you whether you insist skirmishers have to be missile armed. Skirmishers are often lightly equipped but I don't think light equipment defines skirmishers.
Maybe its worth a thought experiment. Two warriors face each other on opposite sides. Each has a shield, sword, javelins, a helmet but no armour. One is a Gaul, the other a Roman velite. Are they the same troop type? If not, why not?
that would be for commentators far more learned than me to answer. In my head I am trying to keep my rules simple and to see how best I can fit troop classifications according to function in a very simplified way.
I have a feeling I may be in a small minority with my musings and they are just that musings for general debate :)
gotcha...
ok, thinking about this in the obverse way...
how many functions on the battlefield are there for infantry?
At one level, there is close quarter combat with melee weapons (perhaps supplemented with short range missiles, whether pila, thrown spears, or one or two javelins); and there is true missile combat with long range weapons such as bows and slings.
Now, of course there is the question of how closely formed the infantry are, and their level of protection. But the former is frankly a choice, based on doctrine/tradition, perceived effectiveness, and terrain. Put another way, there is nothing that makes a Roman legionary fight only in close order (and that was not necessarily as close as some opponents), other than a deliberate decision so to do. Indeed, that may be where the Principate auxiliary comes in - their kit seems not to have been much different to that of the legionaries, but they are usually assumed (rightly or wrongly) to have more of an open order capability.
As for protection, that is probably a question of economics first and foremost. Poor people act as light infantry, not because being poor makes them better light infantry, but because, lacking the capacity to afford heavier gear, it is the economically (and socially acceptable) best way for them to make a battlefield contribution. Yes, there are the "specialist" ethnicities amongst light troops, such as the Balearic slingers and Cretan archers, but that is a specific niche weapon skill, and it is possible that "Cretans" were actually quite well protected by light infantry standards.
The two outliers that I can think of are Bronze Age chariot runners and the rather similar use of light infantry to provide close support to cavalry. These seem to be very particular functions.
Personally I think the more significant issue is with cavalry, who more clearly could be close or loose order, regardless of kit or perceived primary function, save, say, for cataphracts.
thanks for that David, much food for thought....the cavalry question(s) I have avoided so far as it is more tricky in some respects
What I've more or less decided (nothing earth-shattering) - there are three types of infantry (leaving aside outliers like chariots and elephants):
- those who stand in solid formations and fight the enemy face to face, toe to toe, shield to shield (etc)
- those who throw or shoot stuff, fight in loose and open order, and keep out of the way of the enemy
- those who either (if they have no missiles) run in and out of contact, or if they have missiles, use them but might also run in and out of contact
People would tend to use weapons and armour suited to their role (but weapons and armour don't define the role). People fighting face to face might cluster closer together (but order and intervals don't define the role).
Quotethe cavalry question(s) I have avoided so far as it is more tricky in some respects
We did the types of cavalry question quite recently, I recall.
thats pretty straight forward enough Rich. I am going to have to go away and think through a few permutations for my rules certainly as I want to include these elements in the functionality of infantry whilst being able to represent them on the table top with relative ease
Quote from: Erpingham on March 03, 2023, 06:44:50 PMQuotethe cavalry question(s) I have avoided so far as it is more tricky in some respects
We did the types of cavalry question quite recently, I recall.
I have the memory of a goldfish so will demure on this point ;D
Quote from: Imperial Dave on March 03, 2023, 06:48:42 PMQuote from: Erpingham on March 03, 2023, 06:44:50 PMQuotethe cavalry question(s) I have avoided so far as it is more tricky in some respects
We did the types of cavalry question quite recently, I recall.
I have the memory of a goldfish so will demure on this point ;D
http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=6523.0 Ring any bells?
oh yes.....ages ago :o
Given your rules are for a very specific time period and geographical region, I don't think you need to worry about broad or generic terms or definitions or trying to be too inclusive, as modern terminology goes.
You need classifications and types that fit the style of fighting in Dark Ages Britain. So what the Greeks may or may not have done isn't applicable.
The wider the period of your rules then the more classifications / fighting styles / morale / weapons skill combinations are probably needed to reflect the diversity of the armies.
How the rule writer combines a fighting style (e.g. skirmishing) with representation of model figures and base sizes is up to the author.
Thanks David, that has somewhat helped to stop my mind freewheeling into a multitude of angles to check and conform to stereotypes. I really need to sit down with a strong (Klatchian) coffee and give myself a good talking to. Revisiting my rules, I fear I may have to start again but I have a few extra nuggets thus far.
for DA battles I think less is more in terms of troop types so I am minded to stick with heavy and light for all infantry
QuoteYou need classifications and types that fit the style of fighting in Dark Ages Britain. So what the Greeks may or may not have done isn't applicable.
The problem Dave, or anybody else, has is we don't have much information about what combat was like in Early Medieval/Dark Age Britain. Did dedicated skirmishers exist? Was there any organised skirmishing at all? If Dave wants to put these in his rules, he will need to borrow a model from another time.
Gildas says that the Romans left military manuals to enable the Britons to defend themselves. I'd guess this included how to use light infantry.
I'd say raiding requires men acting as light infantry.
The poor might well self define as light infantry by virtue of lack of kit. Although a spear and shield will do for close order fighting.
Young fellows have the speed and stamina required for light infantry and also maybe the recklessness.
Boys learned their military skills at home. Home could be Court, fosterers or parents. Hunting seems to have helped. The amount of time spent learning seems dependent on social class.
We have pretty much a blank canvas for the period. We know there was close fighting and we know there was raiding.
Thanks for that Stephen. I do suspect that reading was by far the larger of the two especially in the 6th and early 7th centuries
I think the one led to the other.
A raid might be to take loot and slaves and or to drive out the target population. I imagine opportunistic raiding and systematic raiding. The latter being a serious threat.
If we think of a typical polity as being like the layers of an onion. At the centre there is the king. It is his job to step in if foreign aggression proves too much for the local nobles. Failure to do so costs him military support and revenue producing territory. If he loses too much the kingdom falls. In such circumstances I find it easy to imagine such a king launching a major expedition even if the odds were against success. The expedition likely resulted in battle.
On an tangent. Much was made of 30 men being deemed an army in the Laws of Ine. I think the point here is that if you raised 30 armed men in Wessex without royal sanction you were challenging royal authority. The law then was about domestic stability in Wessex rather than an indication of what constituted a viable army.
I suppose the other aspect to consider is what you define as skirmishing?
Is it a small fight with a few individuals involved, shooting or throwing things at a distance, or Hollywood style individual fencing in a dispersed manner (as opposed to concerted close order slog)?
In a large battle, it could be argued that troops that weren't in close order could do all of the above.
yes, tactical vs strategic battle size does alter the parameters somewhat
Once again, we are back to basic parameters. I think the conversation has shown most folks would distinguish between a skirmisher (a function) and light infantry (more a general term for the lightly equipped). Stephen reminds us that a lot of warfare was small scale and David that small scale fights may be more individual and loose than a formal battle. So Dave perhaps needs to define what scale of fight he is interested in and consider what would be the appropriate way of handling skirmishing within it, to tighten the focus.
Yes. And therein lies part of the problem. I want to model both but suspect a more generic approach is going to be the best for me personally
Yes, defining the abstraction level (i.e. real men to figures ratio) and also the ground scale (even to an approximation) as a first step would be useful, as you can then "model" how skirmishing troops would behave and can be represented at that level.
Mine are 1:50 with a hex being about 1/4 mile. So light troops (e.g. infantry in dispersed order) in groups of 100 men (2 figures on a base) can operate in the vicinity of their parent body (the next hex) and skirmish with approaching enemy. When battle closes and real melee starts they usually fall back behind their main body and provide support by skirmishing again. In each case skirmishing is a mix of throwing or shooting pointed sticks plus an occasional close and swing and then fall back.
Open order infantry have to stay in the same hex as their colleagues, but some are assumed to move forward to skirmish with nearby enemy before they drop back to join the battle line. So they aren't as effective at longer range shooting as their dispersed foot friends but more powerful in the real fight.
At that scale, I very much doubt you would see any skirmishing, and almost no missile fire either.
A quarter mile is a lot of ground to run up and back in, and even good quality bows are pretty ineffective further than that
I have played around with doing that for squares
Yes a 1/4 mile is a long distance Mark. My missile ranges used to be even longer!
My assumption is that the troops could be anywhere within that hex and if in dispersed order (or skirmishing) some may be moving into the next hex and then falling back. The effect of skirmishing, in terms of casualties from infantry, is pretty minimal.
But any point in that hex is a quarter mile from the same point in the other hex. How many men in your formed infantry in the quarter mile?
Quote from: Imperial Dave on March 06, 2023, 11:40:53 AMYes. And therein lies part of the problem. I want to model both but suspect a more generic approach is going to be the best for me personally
Some rules provide for heroic combat between leaders or champions as well as mass combat. It would be easy enough to extrapolate a skirmish combat system from that used for heroic fights. I haven't tried but I'm pretty sure I could do that with say, Comitatus. There might be some inspiration in that line of thinking.
agreed. I think it would be relatively easy to add this and also add this as an option not a compulsory element
I'm not that specific as to where men stand within a hex Mark. I don't measure distances at all, troops are either in this hex or that one. So they could be 1/2 mile apart or 10 feet. The attached examples may help explain (?) my perceptions and process for trying to reconcile that in the real world you don't have turns (although I may have missed some of mine) and movement was more fluid and continuous than we see in current rulesets.
I arrived at the 1/4 mile per hex after another discussion on the forum came up with a suggested frontage for a Roman legionary cohort and as 4 of these fit in a line across a hex....
I think your looking for a solution to a problem you don't have.
The notion that hexes are big, to incorporate a legion as you want to represent it is fine.
But you shouldn't also piddle about with a superfluous troop type the happens to float about permanently at the edge of that hex just so you can show you have them in the game.
And if I understood that legions aren't really your main thing, but more medieval- where your not even sure how this troop type should be represented- the solution is obviously to stop piddling about with skirmishing.
If your rules are to be coherent then they must maintain a basic level of logical consistency, and at a quarter mile hex there is no representation of skirmishing, and sod all of missile capabilities either.
If you really do want to represent skirmishing, then start by asking why.
The correct answer is never going to be "because other rules do", but answering your own why might also solve how you then represent it.
food for thought and I suspect the skirmisher question probably does fall into the trap of 'because other rules do' several times