Recent games with Successor vs Republican Roman armies have raised questions about how light infantry operated in relation to heavy infantry. Useful scholarship on the question has been provided thanks to Adrian Naylor.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/29039/1/2012andersaophd.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi6icXUk9OEAxXBWEEAHYg5D64QFnoECB4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw15A59nLcXqLD-Ky12e5ITR
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1684%26context%3Detd_all%23:~:text%3Deffective%2520javelin%2520men%252C%2520both%2520peltasts,the%2520best%2520peltasts%2520and%2520javelineers.&ved=2ahUKEwjTntLemdOEAxUMg_0HHSNNAV8QFnoECA8QBg&usg=AOvVaw09038FD41MXLYO2o-z3V4F
Duncan Head has also provided the following reference -
"There's a 1993 thesis by Stephen Nutt, Tactical interaction and integration : a study in warfare in the Hellenistic period from Philip II to the Battle of Pydna, downloadable from Newcastle University's site (https://theses.ncl.ac.uk/jspui/handle/10443/542). It has a chapter on psiloi, including a discussion of their use as screens."
Do these analyses suggest -
1) that we tend to under-estimate the importance of light troops in warfare in this period ? ; and
2) that rule systems tend not to handle them in a realistic manner?
If so, what should we do about it?
Thank you for identifying the papers.
I will respond to your questions in the context of the Mortem-et-Gloriam rules (I edit the army lists).
1) In developing the rules we paid close attention to light troops so we certainly didn't ignore them.
2) We have a number of features in the rules which we hope helps to include them in a realistic manner.
a) When moving "line" units (TuGs in MeG), a unit can "tug" a "light" unit (SuGs).
b) The light troops generally don't restrict the movement of enemy line troops, instead falling back in front of them.
c) The light troops can range in troop quality (Poor, Average, Superior) and in shooting quality (Unskilled, Experienced, Skilled), be either Protected or Unprotected and have a characteristic of "combat shy". This provides for a range of light infantry from levies who are ineffectual to quite effective Velites, Euzenoi or Lanciarii (if you regard them as light) that in the right circumstances are highly effective.
d) When line units are close to breaking, the light troops can engage them with a chance of finishing them off.
e) If light units run away, line units are not affected.
f) Losses of light troops do not determine when a battle is won, but do affect the score in a competition game.
Part of the skill of playing MeG well is using light troops effectively.
There are two related topics
#1 is how terrain is modelled in the rule set. On a completely open plain light infantry may have less effect than in a battlefield with plenty of terrain.
#2 is how shooting is modelled in the rule set. Most light units are equipped with missiles so the impact they make is affected by how they shoot.
Richard
Richard,
Thank you for this. That is a very clear account of how light troops work during combat under MEG. I think your 2 b) - that they don't stand up to main line troops in hand to hand combat - is very much in keeping with the source and academic analysis.
I am intrigued by the idea of line units 'tugging' light units. What aspect of recorded combat is this intended to emulate, or is it a function of activation under the rule set to avoid light units getting left behind?
Do light troops play any function in the pre-battle set up, helping to determine the conditions under which a main action takes place - whether through terrain placement, deployment or morale effects - or in the aftermath, increasing or reducing the scale of slaughter during pursuit? The sources and the analysis suggest that these are key functions of these troops.
Or in probing actions....?
Quote from: Imperial Dave on March 02, 2024, 06:42:56 AMOr in probing actions....?
Best left to inquisitive aliens ...
:o
What does the term 'Light Infantry' refer to? Is it true (untrained or trained) missile 'skirmishers' (varying from stone-throwers, through slingers and bowmen to jasvelin-throwers), anti-skirmisher skirmishers, trained or tribal (e.g. arguably Roman Velites, early Thracian Peltasts), or other trained 'loose 'Formation' 'combat' infantry (e.g. Iphicratean 'Peltasts').
Perhaps the 'generic' term 'light Infantry' is too broad a term as it covers a variety of troop types with a variety of battlefield roles.
Most rules distinguish between true 'skirmishers' and 'combat' (massed) Light Infantry (e.g. Peltasts as LMI).
Then there are troops with 'Rough Terrain' capabilities as well (some Roman Auxilia and even Warbands).
Perhaps the discussion could look at battlefield 'roles' and then attempt to allocate historical examples to those.
So where do Irish kern fit into all this erudite classical analysis?
???
Quote from: Nick Harbud on March 02, 2024, 09:30:32 AMSo where do Irish kern fit into all this erudite classical analysis?
???
Perhaps in the same category as bidauts, bidowers, welsh "knifemen" and other medieval light infantry types? Irregular infantry whose main roles were outside the line of battle - raiding, ambushing, etc.? I'm not sure you can look at Medieval light infantry in the same way as classical ones.
Yet many wargames rules treat all light infantry types the same, irrespective of period, background or training.
It sounds like an area that is long overdue for study.
Quote from: Nick Harbud on March 02, 2024, 09:30:32 AMSo where do Irish kern fit into all this erudite classical analysis?
???
Since the thread specifically deals with classical warfare they don't. But they are interesting nonetheless: English accounts, mostly Tudor, almost exclusively describe them as skirmishers but Irish narratives show that they could fight as part of a more solid formation in pitched battle, usually when stiffened by nobles fighting on foot. The evidence suggests either/or for each mode so my inclination would be to treat them as line of battle troops (albeit not particularly effective ones by contemporary standards) when playing a pitched battle scenario, otherwise as skirmishers. I'm less happy nowadays with the conventional army list provision to field them as a mixture of LI/Ps and LMI/Ax
Quote from: Nick Harbud on March 02, 2024, 11:37:00 AMYet many wargames rules treat all light infantry types the same, irrespective of period, background or training.
It sounds like an area that is long overdue for study.
Well done that man for volunteering 🙋�♂️
:-[ :-[ :-[
;D
Quote from: Keraunos on March 02, 2024, 03:50:46 AMI am intrigued by the idea of line units 'tugging' light units. What aspect of recorded combat is this intended to emulate, or is it a function of activation under the rule set to avoid light units getting left behind?
Do light troops play any function in the pre-battle set up, helping to determine the conditions under which a main action takes place - whether through terrain placement, deployment or morale effects - or in the aftermath, increasing or reducing the scale of slaughter during pursuit? The sources and the analysis suggest that these are key functions of these troops.
The "tugging" is intended to represent a group of skirmishers being attached to a line unit and being told to follow or support them. Otherwise they would reduce the capability to move line units so might get left behind.
Light troops (mostly cavalry but to some extent infantry) do contribute to the pre-battle system (I forgot to mention this), both in selecting the terrain and in scouting (who deploys what first) - but other factors such as the quality of the army commander play a significant role.
Richard
Quote from: Mick Hession on March 02, 2024, 11:45:54 AMQuote from: Nick Harbud on March 02, 2024, 09:30:32 AMSo where do Irish kern fit into all this erudite classical analysis?
???
Since the thread specifically deals with classical warfare they don't. But they are interesting nonetheless: English accounts, mostly Tudor, almost exclusively describe them as skirmishers but Irish narratives show that they could fight as part of a more solid formation in pitched battle, usually when stiffened by nobles fighting on foot. The evidence suggests either/or for each mode so my inclination would be to treat them as line of battle troops (albeit not particularly effective ones by contemporary standards) when playing a pitched battle scenario, otherwise as skirmishers. I'm less happy nowadays with the conventional army list provision to field them as a mixture of LI/Ps and LMI/Ax
This of course ties into previous debates about "medium infantry" (like this one (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=4055.msg52237)) and about whether they're genuinely tactically intermediate between heavy and light foot, or whether they're swing-role troops able to switch between heavy and light functions, or just second-rate heavy infantry.
Apologies once again for starting up a topic that has already been well covered. I must use the search function more fully before posting. :-X I will digest the discussion in the classification thread as well as the various articles and see whether the questions I had still stand or can be reframed to support fresh thought rather than reboil old soup.
Quote from: Keraunos on March 03, 2024, 03:04:51 AMApologies once again for starting up a topic that has already been well covered. I must use the search function more fully before posting. :-X I will digest the discussion in the classification thread as well as the various articles and see whether the questions I had still stand or can be reframed to support fresh thought rather than reboil old soup.
For what it's worth, I didn't mean to imply that Mick, and still less you, were retreading old ground. I merely wanted to call attention to that Mick's point is
related to matters we've previously discussed.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on March 03, 2024, 10:14:02 AMFor what it's worth, I didn't mean to imply that Mick, and still less you, were retreading old ground. I merely wanted to call attention to that Mick's point is related to matters we've previously discussed.
I appreciate that, thank you, but I still think on reflection that I have launched into some questions without really thinking through what I am trying to answer and without the benefit of having read what has gone before. So, I will do a bit more homework and then return to the matter.
I think, Kim, you were prompted by myself, who should have recognised the connection earlier - I said enough in the other thread :) That said, one of the reasons for going for a new topic was to collect together source information, which was legitimate. One thing the other topic did bring out is being clear on what you mean when you say light infantry. Are you thinking light-armed or are you thinking functionally e.g. skirmishing infantry? Functionally is more useful rule-wise, IMO, but as the other discussion shows, it's not clear cut.