Having, as mentioned elsewhere, my rebasing project for all my 14th century ribaulds, I have turned my thoughts to my smaller number of bases of bidaults/bidets/bidowers. These are on skirmisher bases (two figures, 60mm frontage). What I have been asking myself is, is that correct? Were they skirmishing javelineers?
Certain things are well known about the B guys. They were from Iberia, the Pyrenees and Gascony (and maybe Brittany), they were mercenaries, and they fought, at least sometimes, along with skirmish screens of crossbowmen. They could be used as raiding. But does this mean that they are missile skirmishers?
Does anyone know of a good survey of the subject of B types and their battlefield role bringing together scattered sources, to help me resolve the best way to use these? While having some javelin skirmishers gives variety, they are rather useless :(
I don't know of such a useful survey. I do know the Normans encountered similar Italian troops when setting up in Italy. Following the Italian theme and outside of our period B type troops are still found as part of composite units.
I think our various rule sets might underestimate the abilities of the B's. That may be because we misunderstand what the B's actually did in battle. At times they seem to have been very close to the action and comfortable with that. Not how we usually imagine skirmishers. That's not to say the couldn't raid or whatever.
As for basing I'd be tempted to go for 3 figures a base.
An interesting topic.
Thanks Stephen. One thing that has occurred to me is parallels with similar kit elsewhere, not in the ancient world, but the medieval. Almoghavars have exactly the same kit. They performed similar roles and came from similar environments. We know they were a tough proposition in a fight. Now, there is no evidence the B team were as wild or tough but then they don't have the write up either.
Also, thinking about it, the Welsh infantry at Crecy, usually called knifemen because that is the piece of equipment Froissart notes they had, were bidais. We might also note the Middle English word bidow(e) - a type of knife perhaps derived from bidower.
That's a useful line of thought to follow I think.
A good point too about the Almoghavars. They got the write up and so we know how the fought. Yet, we cannot see a material difference between them and the B's. It maybe the B's fought in the same fashion, to much the same effect more or less. Perhaps they didn't get written up because our sources are more interested in the doings of the aristocrats or promoting the cause of their patrons. We can say the B's continue to be hired, presumably for good reason.
That's interesting about the attention paid to the Welsh knife. Knives are of course only useful at very close quarters. I'm minded of the ones carried by many Kern. Those were long and pointed, not much edge at all, unusual for the Irish. Good for puncturing armour though. Again it implies use at close quarters.
QuoteThat's interesting about the attention paid to the Welsh knife. Knives are of course only useful at very close quarters. I'm minded of the ones carried by many Kern. Those were long and pointed, not much edge at all, unusual for the Irish. Good for puncturing armour though. Again it implies use at close quarters.
We perhaps don't pay enough attention to knives as combat weapons in the Middle Ages. They are commonplace sidearms and many are pushing at the short sword end of things (such as the baselard and its relatives). Emergency back up and something carried in expectation of close fighting?
Seaxes ,too are often quite short. Doubtless a short weapon that s more useful if the press pushes you up against opponents where swinging a long sword or using a spear iverarm exposes you to a thrust
Roy
Guiart has them mixed in with the French crossbowmen against the Flemish, perhaps as rear ranks going by the description of Mons-en-P. The crossbowmen aren't really a skirmish screen though.
It would make sense that if the same applied at Kortrijk then then pursuit with shield and sword would be by Bs, having expended or put aside their darts.
I think the description of them as having dart, lance and coutel is so similar to Almugavars that, along with their origin, there is a good chance that they would be functionally the same. One difference is that Guiart's Bs have targes whereas Muntanar has the citizens in Sicily comment on the moogs having no shield. Is that because the almugavars are expected to get in close more quickly, or are the Bs actually better equipped for close combat?
It could be that definitions of almugavars are too generous - after all, their successes against knights tend to have some kind of terrain advantage.
Quote from: Swampster on October 31, 2021, 09:47:10 PM
It could be that definitions of almugavars are too generous - after all, their successes against knights tend to have some kind of terrain advantage.
There is always the risk
But it's worth reading the Chronicle of Ramon Muntaner
https://www.yorku.ca/inpar/muntaner_goodenough.pdf
QuoteGuiart has them mixed in with the French crossbowmen against the Flemish, perhaps as rear ranks going by the description of Mons-en-P. The crossbowmen aren't really a skirmish screen though.
It would make sense that if the same applied at Kortrijk then then pursuit with shield and sword would be by Bs, having expended or put aside their darts.
Guiart is one of the better sources on the Bs and should know a bit about them as he served alongside them and even led them on occassion (he was wounded leading a unit of Bs in an attack on a fortified manor). As you say, the crossbowmen aren't a running about skirmish line - more an advanced firing line - but they are trained for distant warfare rather than close combat. Giving them a light infantry component who were more geared up to fight hand-to-hand may have been helpful.
That is a telling point I think. The Bs can throw their darts adding to the missilery and seem to have been better able for hand to hand than the crossbows.
Going back to the knives for a moment. As Roy notes knives came in many forms. I'd imagine the Bs equipped themselves as best they could for close work and that they knew what they were doing when they chose their kit.
As an aside King Baldwin was wounded by a dart thrown by a Zanj "wild Sudanese" rather than the formed sort. I wonder if the Zanj of that type were a sort of B?
I think there is a place for a more "muscular" light infantry, especially in the Middle Ages (though I can't help think a Roman velite might also fit that description). But then we might have to disentangle them from other flavours of lighter infantry, like ribalds and brigans.
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 01, 2021, 09:54:26 AM
Quote from: Swampster on October 31, 2021, 09:47:10 PM
It could be that definitions of almugavars are too generous - after all, their successes against knights tend to have some kind of terrain advantage.
There is always the risk
But it's worth reading the Chronicle of Ramon Muntaner
https://www.yorku.ca/inpar/muntaner_goodenough.pdf
I have read it a couple of times.
One of the problems is that so much of the focus is on individual prowess against knights rather than overall views of the battles.
I wouldn't wish to reduce the ability of almuavars in DBMM though - I have a so far unused army of them :)
(Usual story - get a few Essex figures for my Spanish army, see the rather nice Eureka figures and double my numbers. Then acquire another bunch from a retiring gamer. To cap it all, get a bunch of the newish ones from Lurkio. Whoops, I have an army.)
In theory archers ought to murder Almughavars, stand off 200 yards away and put 20 arrows each into the target. I suppose, that if they ran at the archers they would cover bow range in about a minute? That might have the archers turning and fleeing only 100 yards away.
Roy
I have spent half a lifetime arguing that there was a great deal more variety in troop types and tactical flexibility to be found than is ever allowed in wargaming interpretations of medieval armies. Not least is different 'order' in which infantry could fight e.g. the 'longbowman' in ranks, amidst stakes or in rough ground, as skirmishers and even 'tirailleurs' in advance of the main body etc. etc. 'Knifemen', a category which might include Almughavars and bidaults, were much feared my the knights for their tendency to slip under the horses' bellies (dangerous but true!). What is needed something along the lines of Paddy Griffith's 'tactical snippetting' to identify their style of fighting and also more flexible interpretations on the wargames table.
Kern are similar. They can dodge about and chuck their darts but can also get involved in melee
Quote from: Dave Knight on January 07, 2022, 09:02:42 PM
Kern are similar. They can dodge about and chuck their darts but can also get involved in melee
Bit like some Republican Roman Legionaries then ;)
Quote from: Dave Knight on January 07, 2022, 09:02:42 PM
Kern are similar. They can dodge about and chuck their darts but can also get involved in melee
Yes, I think they are another example of this sort of soldier, with a bit more solidity that a simple skirmisher.