This is something I'm thinking of incorporating into Optio, but it's not something I'm very knowledgeable about. Other rulesets have it: in Mortem eg Gloriam missile file will directly slow the advance of an enemy line, whilst in DBx missile fire often inflicts recoils, effectively slowing down the enemy. But how effective were bowmen, slingers and javelinmen in retarding the arrival of their opponents? Did they do better against cavalry than infantry? Were some heavily protected infantry, e.g. pikemen, unaffected?
In Optio there are two phases per turn and heavy infantry advance one square per phase. Faster infantry like peltasts advance 2 squares. Cavalry advance 3. What in your opinion would be a good way of replicating the drag that missiles would have on these troop types?
And to the floor.
Ah, so many clarifications :) I shall assume you are looking for Classical examples.
First query - why do you think slowing the enemy advance a major tactical consideration for missile troops?
Second, did it depend on the tactics of the missile troops? Did a unit of sparabara have different objectives than a bunch of Balearic slingers, or a line of heavy skirmishers like velites?
Quote from: Erpingham on May 30, 2020, 03:02:06 PM
First query - why do you think slowing the enemy advance a major tactical consideration for missile troops?
It determines how much fire a missile unit can pour into advancing enemy before being contacted.
Quote from: Erpingham on May 30, 2020, 03:02:06 PMSecond, did it depend on the tactics of the missile troops? Did a unit of sparabara have different objectives than a bunch of Balearic slingers, or a line of heavy skirmishers like velites?
I would think the overall objective was the same - try to inflict a bit of demoralisation on the enemy before the heavy troops got stuck in. In some cases it could stop enemy troops dead in their tracks. (I'm thinking of Greek psiloi being used to stop cavalry).
But it's a good question. What
was the point of missile fire?
so if fired upon, as infantry do you shrink under raised shields and slow the advance to maintain cohesion and thus cover OR do you run faster and harder to minimise the time exposed to fire?
Didn't slow them at Marathon.
Roy
QuoteIt determines how much fire a missile unit can pour into advancing enemy before being contacted.
Yes and no. Rate of fire (for want of better) is at least as important. Also, why is this important? One might postulate that once the advance starts, the assorted psiloi are mainly involved in getting out of the way. Their time is before the advance starts.
Quotetry to inflict a bit of demoralisation on the enemy before the heavy troops got stuck in.
I think this is actually a more plausible objective than trying to slow the enemy. The enemy can come on a fast as they like as long as they are disordered.
Quoteso if fired upon, as infantry do you shrink under raised shields and slow the advance to maintain cohesion and thus cover OR do you run faster and harder to minimise the time exposed to fire?
A choice of counter strategies :) It probably depends who you are, your tactical doctrine, your protective equipment, your morale and many other things. If you are the Spartans, you plod forward "in the shade". If you are Athenians you close at the double.
OK, just to clarify. In Optio, missile-capable troops score one or more 'missile hits' on opponents, once per player's move. That means twice per turn. 6 missiles hits drops the opponent's morale by 1 interval. Once a unit's morale drops below the last morale interval the unit routs.
My take is that missile fire didn't so much disorder troops as demoralise them - being constantly bombarded by enemy fire without being able to do anything about it is psychologically demoralising, abstraction made of any actual casualties. So the longer that missile troops can shoot enemy units, the better their own melee troops will do against the enemy when they eventually engage in melee combat.
Slowing down the enemy's advance hence becomes important as that gives more time for the missiles to hammer at enemy morale. It's not simply about slowing the enemy as such. But as Roy points out, enemy would sometimes speed up to get past the missile barrage, like the hoplites at Marathon or Alexander's Companions at Issus. So do we cater for that? Is there a guideline on who gets slowed down and who doesn't, and to what extent the slowed down types actually slow down?
almost feels like a close order vs open order question...?
Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 30, 2020, 05:36:07 PM
Slowing down the enemy's advance hence becomes important as that gives more time for the missiles to hammer at enemy morale. It's not simply about slowing the enemy as such. But as Roy points out, enemy would sometimes speed up to get past the missile barrage, like the hoplites at Marathon or Alexander's Companions at Issus. So do we cater for that? Is there a guideline on who gets slowed down and who doesn't, and to what extent the slowed down types actually slow down?
The tactic of closing swiftly to avoid missile casualties was much favoured during the 19
th century. Paddy Griffiths Forward Into Battle (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Forward-into-Battle-Fighting-Waterloo/dp/0891414711/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=forward+into+battle&qid=1590913462&sr=8-1) discusses it at length. Whilst in many cases it can be efficacious, one can come a cropper if the opponent is sitting behind hedgerows, stakes, barbed wire or similar obstacles.
Quote from: NickHarbud on May 31, 2020, 09:27:27 AM
The tactic of closing swiftly to avoid missile casualties was much favoured during the 19th century.
Which is why we should be cautious about applying it to ancient battles. 19th century armies armed nearly everyone with a missile weapon and had batteries of artillery. Compare a hoplite battle with a skirmish screen of psiloi.
The Athenians at Marathon was surely a deliberate tactic, not a spontaneous response to be shot at. What other examples do we have of missilry impacting on the advance of heavy infantry in the Classical period? Or even cavalry? What was that impact? A change of speed of advance, a change of direction, disorder?
Quote from: Erpingham on May 31, 2020, 10:15:57 AM
What other examples do we have of missilry impacting on the advance of heavy infantry in the Classical period? Or even cavalry? What was that impact? A change of speed of advance, a change of direction, disorder?
This is what really interests me.
Quote from: Erpingham on May 31, 2020, 10:15:57 AM
19th century armies armed nearly everyone with a missile weapon and had batteries of artillery.
I have come across many ancient competition opponents where this statement is true or nearly so, especially Persians, Indians, Tibetans, Chinese and sundry Steppe Nomads or eastern Successors. Western European armies are the exception and, using the Sabin principle, it is amazing any of them ever won a battle.
Quote from: NickHarbud on May 31, 2020, 11:30:43 AM
Quote from: Erpingham on May 31, 2020, 10:15:57 AM
19th century armies armed nearly everyone with a missile weapon and had batteries of artillery.
I have come across many ancient competition opponents where this statement is true or nearly so, especially Persians, Indians, Tibetans, Chinese and sundry Steppe Nomads or eastern Successors.
Assuming these competition gamers are accurately portraying the tactics of the original armies and not just exploiting army lists and an over-estimation of the effects of missilty in the rules being played, the east should therefore be the place where Justin looks for examples.
Quote from: Erpingham on May 31, 2020, 10:15:57 AM
Quote from: NickHarbud on May 31, 2020, 09:27:27 AM
The tactic of closing swiftly to avoid missile casualties was much favoured during the 19th century.
What other examples do we have of missilry impacting on the advance of heavy infantry in the Classical period?
Quote from: Ammianus XXIV.6.11And when the battle-cry was raised in the usual manner by both sides and the trumpets' blare increased the ardour of the men, here and there they fought hand-to‑hand with spears and drawn swords; and the soldiers were freer from the danger of the arrows the more quickly they forced their way into the enemy's ranks.
Quote from: Duncan Head on May 31, 2020, 12:44:04 PM
Quote from: Ammianus XXIV.6.11And when the battle-cry was raised in the usual manner by both sides and the trumpets' blare increased the ardour of the men, here and there they fought hand-to‑hand with spears and drawn swords; and the soldiers were freer from the danger of the arrows the more quickly they forced their way into the enemy's ranks.
Yes, that looks like it. Though in this case, I get the idea of getting into combat rather than hanging about exchanging missiles.
Quote from: Duncan Head on May 31, 2020, 12:44:04 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on May 31, 2020, 10:15:57 AM
Quote from: NickHarbud on May 31, 2020, 09:27:27 AM
The tactic of closing swiftly to avoid missile casualties was much favoured during the 19th century.
What other examples do we have of missilry impacting on the advance of heavy infantry in the Classical period?
Quote from: Ammianus XXIV.6.11And when the battle-cry was raised in the usual manner by both sides and the trumpets' blare increased the ardour of the men, here and there they fought hand-to‑hand with spears and drawn swords; and the soldiers were freer from the danger of the arrows the more quickly they forced their way into the enemy's ranks.
Thanks Duncan. Thus far the sources give examples of troops under missile attack picking up speed rather than vice versa. Anything in the other direction?
Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 31, 2020, 02:35:01 PM
Quote from: Duncan Head on May 31, 2020, 12:44:04 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on May 31, 2020, 10:15:57 AM
Quote from: NickHarbud on May 31, 2020, 09:27:27 AM
The tactic of closing swiftly to avoid missile casualties was much favoured during the 19th century.
What other examples do we have of missilry impacting on the advance of heavy infantry in the Classical period?
Quote from: Ammianus XXIV.6.11And when the battle-cry was raised in the usual manner by both sides and the trumpets' blare increased the ardour of the men, here and there they fought hand-to‑hand with spears and drawn swords; and the soldiers were freer from the danger of the arrows the more quickly they forced their way into the enemy's ranks.
Thanks Duncan. Thus far the sources give examples of troops under missile attack picking up speed rather than vice versa. Anything in the other direction?
Isn't there something about attackers flinching away from longbowmen and piling into the men at arms instead?
They're not so much slowed as channelled if it's true
QuoteIsn't there something about attackers flinching away from longbowmen and piling into the men at arms instead?
They're not so much slowed as channelled if it's true
Yes, with caveats. It happened twice as far as I know (Dupplin Moor and Agincourt). In the former, the terrain may have been a feature. However, we can have some doubt that the target of the men-at-arms included the archers i.e. they were after the men-at-arms all along. However, Justin isn't that interested in medieval examples. If he was we would be considering crossbows against Eastern cavalry in the Crusades or the rare occassion of the battle of Hausbergen in 1262 where the Strasbourg militia crossbowmen prevented the episcopal infantry from advancing to the aid of their knights, who were consequently defeated. This is the only medieval example I can think of where an infantry advance was stopped by archery. But as I said, I'm trying to keep it classical :)
Quote from: Erpingham on May 31, 2020, 05:52:07 PM
But as I said, I'm trying to keep it classical :)
Oh, mediaeval will do.
You might consider the course of the Battle of Bulgneville in 1431. There are some intriguing discrepancies in modern accounts, though some of this may be caused by my limited French. However, here Rene of Anjou faced off against Antoine de Vaudemont in an inheritance dispute. This would have been all small beer except the French provided Anjou with an army, while Vaudemont received considerable Burgundian and English contingents, which gave him lots of English and Picard longbows. Anyway, Vaudemonts army emplaced itself on a slight hill beyond a river, with stakes across its front and wagons covering the rear and flanks (pretty identical, in fact, to Blore Heath in the WOTR). Anjou advanced across the river to be greeted by artillery fire, which shook his inexperienced troops who then had to wade through a storm of longbow arrows. The right got into contact but the centre faltered, then fell back. The left wing cavalry either charged and failed to make it stick, then ran off, or did nothing then ran off. Vaudemonts Burgundian men-at-arms mounted up and scattered the remaining waivers. So, inexperienced infantry stopped in its tracks by guns and massed archery. Tactical circumstances - poor quality troops asked to assault across a river against an enemy dug in on a hill, under heavy fire.
Quote from: Erpingham on June 02, 2020, 05:51:33 PM
You might consider the course of the Battle of Bulgneville in 1431. There are some intriguing discrepancies in modern accounts, though some of this may be caused by my limited French. However, here Rene of Anjou faced off against Antoine de Vaudemont in an inheritance dispute. This would have been all small beer except the French provided Anjou with an army, while Vaudemont received considerable Burgundian and English contingents, which gave him lots of English and Picard longbows. Anyway, Vaudemonts army emplaced itself on a slight hill beyond a river, with stakes across its front and wagons covering the rear and flanks (pretty identical, in fact, to Blore Heath in the WOTR). Anjou advanced across the river to be greeted by artillery fire, which shook his inexperienced troops who then had to wade through a storm of longbow arrows. The right got into contact but the centre faltered, then fell back. The left wing cavalry either charged and failed to make it stick, then ran off, or did nothing then ran off. Vaudemonts Burgundian men-at-arms mounted up and scattered the remaining waivers. So, inexperienced infantry stopped in its tracks by guns and massed archery. Tactical circumstances - poor quality troops asked to assault across a river against an enemy dug in on a hill, under heavy fire.
That's very interesting, thanks Anthony.
Quote from: Erpingham on June 02, 2020, 05:51:33 PM
You might consider the course of the Battle of Bulgneville in 1431. There are some intriguing discrepancies in modern accounts, though some of this may be caused by my limited French. However, here Rene of Anjou faced off against Antoine de Vaudemont in an inheritance dispute. This would have been all small beer except the French provided Anjou with an army, while Vaudemont received considerable Burgundian and English contingents, which gave him lots of English and Picard longbows. Anyway, Vaudemonts army emplaced itself on a slight hill beyond a river, with stakes across its front and wagons covering the rear and flanks (pretty identical, in fact, to Blore Heath in the WOTR). Anjou advanced across the river to be greeted by artillery fire, which shook his inexperienced troops who then had to wade through a storm of longbow arrows. The right got into contact but the centre faltered, then fell back. The left wing cavalry either charged and failed to make it stick, then ran off, or did nothing then ran off. Vaudemonts Burgundian men-at-arms mounted up and scattered the remaining waivers. So, inexperienced infantry stopped in its tracks by guns and massed archery. Tactical circumstances - poor quality troops asked to assault across a river against an enemy dug in on a hill, under heavy fire.
I confess that the result doesn't come as a surprise but it's nice to see an expected result.
I came across this while looking for something else. It's from the Alliterative Morte D'Arthur, a Middle English poem of c.1400 (lines 1205-6)
So they shrinken for shot of the sharp arrows,
That all the sheltron shunt and shuddered at ones;
Read "for" as "before", shunt in its obsolete meaning of "hang back", sheltron in its generic use "body of soldiers".
OK, it's poetry but it shows someone in the Middle Ages thought archery slowed the advance.