I nearly put this under "Rule System Discussions" but thought it was better to start with checking the evidence before going on to the mechanics ;)
My current 6mm solo battle involves my Achaemenid Persians with lots of Sparabara type infantry. On the basis that it is difficult to run whilst carrying a small fencing panel, let alone fight and stay in line, and that the Persians apparently had props for the pavises, I decided that troops fighting in this style cannot charge. But then I wondered if there was any evidence for them doing so?
As a spin-off there is then the question of how much - if any - archery support the rear ranks could supply if they too were charging into melee. Simon's latest Tactica2 article with Late Romans reminded me that other armies also apparently had rear rank archers supporting troops that did charge. However, the Persians seemed to focus on massed volley fire to darken the skies with their arrows whilst other supporting troops potentially were sniping through gaps.
One argument would be that if you've got a wall of archers behind you, why would you want to charge into close combat. Let the lads play and whittle the enemy down whilst you're comparatively safe 8)
But Scots and French infantry seem to have advanced behind pavises or very heavy shields to attack English longbowmen. So obviously it could be done
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 03, 2024, 09:05:05 AMBut Scots and French infantry seem to have advanced behind pavises or very heavy shields to attack English longbowmen.
Italian and Flemish crossbowmen could advance behind their pavises, which were carried by separate shield bearers, but this just made their "fence" mobile, rather than gave it offensive capabilities.
For medieval evidence, perhaps the Bohemians might be a good example to look at.
I'm not sure anyone could actually charge with a medieval pavise, though. They were bulky and heavy.
From the non historical examples in my collection I have assumed a bearer carried it with perhaps a spear or other hand weapon at the ready. Illustrations show both this and crossbow men carrying their own. In either case they look too 'clunky' to fight with whilst actively moving and I certainly would not like to try charging anything well armed whilst carrying one.
I think it depends on what you mean by a pavise. The Scots front rank at Flodden carried "huge pavise type shields"
Didn't the medieval ones have a strap to carry over your back with, hands free and no movement impediment?
But broadly, pavaise equipment seems to preclude charging, but allow steady advance to contact if required.
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 03, 2024, 10:16:20 AMI think it depends on what you mean by a pavise. The Scots front rank at Flodden carried "huge pavise type shields"
And how did that turn out?
The DBMM army list says that French pavisiers drove off English longbowmen at Nogent-sur-Seine in 1359, but some googling fails to find any details of that battle.
Quote from: stevenneate on November 03, 2024, 11:47:24 PMQuote from: Jim Webster on November 03, 2024, 10:16:20 AMI think it depends on what you mean by a pavise. The Scots front rank at Flodden carried "huge pavise type shields"
And how did that turn out?
Apparently it was reasonable protection against longbows, but damn all use against the rough types with bills
There's still one or two of those knocking about now Jim ;D
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on November 04, 2024, 04:56:45 AMThe DBMM army list says that French pavisiers drove off English longbowmen at Nogent-sur-Seine in 1359, but some googling fails to find any details of that battle.
My bit of googling gives no mention of pavises in the Wikipedia article on Flodden but has raised a few references to Scots pikes carrying shields (bucklers) while other troops had crude 'targets' made of ends of boards but nothing the size of a pavise. It is very hard to see how a pikeman with a 5.5 meter pike requiring both hands to use could also carry a pavise at all, let alone charge with it (through a bog). On the other hand, it seems that the Scots put their best armoured men in the front rank, possibly not armed with pikes (?) and archery was not very effective against them. Was this because they carried pavises to protect the men behind, or because of their armour? Again, very hard to see armoured men making their way through a bog with a pavise.
What sources are there for pavises at Flodden? The only references I have turned up are from battles later in the century when there is some slight attestation for them being used as a protection against English shot.
Hmm, not too much about the Persians....
On that basis my Xerxes will probably stick to his normal tactics (a bit like Mark G's) of: advance form a shieldwall, shoot when the enemy comes in range (note they can only fire at short range), bounce the charge with a mix of spear prodding and more archery, then if the enemy starts to back off - advance the wall, reform, shoot etc.
Very occasionally a unit will become over eager and charge enemy in the adjacent hex in which case they don't get much of shooting support bonus.
For original sources I came across this
"Thomas Ruthal, Bishop of Durham, explained in a letter to Thomas Wolsey dated 20 September 1513:
English Heritage Battlefield Report: Flodden 1513
© English Heritage 1995
The said Scots were so surely harnessed with complete harness, German jacks, rivets, splents [forms of body armour], pavises [large wooden shields], and other habilments, that shot of arrows in regard did them no harm; and when it came to hand strokes of bills and halberds, they were so mighty, large, strong, and great men that they would not fall when four or five bills struck on one of them at once. Howbeit our bills quitted them very well, and did more good that day than bows, for they shortly disappointed the Scots of their long spears wherein was their greatest trust; and when they came to hand stroke, though the Scots fought sore and valiantly with their swords, yet they could not resist the bills that lighted so thick and sore upon them7.
In the past Edward Hall's Chronicle, first published in 1548 (though written slightly earlier), has been widely quoted in connection with Flodden. At first sight there might not appear any good reason why it should be regarded as more authoritative than the accounts written c.1570 by Holinshed, or the Scottish chroniclers Buchanan, Pitscottie and Leslie. However, it is known that Hall quoted practically verbatim from a contemporary account of 'the order and behaviour' of the Earl of Surrey against the Scots printed 'in Fletestrete at the sign of the George by Richard Pynson, printer unto the King's noble grace'. The account was compiled by 'one unworthy whom it pleased the said earl to have about him'"
It also depends what your game considers a charge. A slow press forward may result in contact or in short range bow fire for the bow types. If the defenders are not equipped with missiles, they may be the ones who initiate the actual hand strokes but the overall tactical view would show the pavise holders as the aggressors.
"Didn't the medieval ones have a strap to carry over your back with, hands free and no movement impediment?"
I do wonder how common this was.
There is the oft repeated picture of a crossbowman at a siege doing this, though the crossbowman to his side has his pavise held by a bearer. I can't remember off-hand any others.
In Manuscript miniatures, there are 100 pictures tagged with 'pavise' and I didn't see any where the crossbowman is carrying his own pavise, loads (mostly Italian) with a spearman carrying the pavise - though often with no associated crossbowmen - and quite a few where there is someone with no obvious weapon holding a pavise for a crossbowman. I have a note that Verbruggen and others describe Low Countries the pavise being held by a 'boy' (knaap, iirc).
Nicolle had an essay online in which he said the Genoese at Crecy would have had their pavises carried by bearers but I don't know if there is a contract which details this.
This is a non-historical scene but shows an example https://manuscriptminiatures.com/3932/10781
One of the 1950s Czech films on the Hussite wars shows a bearer and crossbowman partnership really nicely.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on November 04, 2024, 04:56:45 AMThe DBMM army list says that French pavisiers drove off English longbowmen at Nogent-sur-Seine in 1359, but some googling fails to find any details of that battle.
Froissart describes it but in one of the bits missing in the common English translations. It's in Johnes' translation - I'll see if I can find it. There are a number of descriptions of English archery failing against pavise-bearing infantry, IIRC.
On what the Scottish formation might have looked like at Flodden, have a look at pictures of the battle of Wenzenbach in 1504 (there are lots, but many are derivative)
(https://weaponsandwarfare.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Battle-of-Wenzenbach-1504.jpg)
(https://weaponsandwarfare.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/1706447212_644_Battle-of-Wenzenbach-1504.jpg)
Note the use of pike over pavise.
I'm not sure you could advance like this - you might need to discard the pavises, or the front rank ditch pikes to handle the pavise.
I note this example of a pavise (https://royalarmouries.org/collection/object/object-518) from the Royal Armouries Old Tower Collection has the following dimensions and weight.
| Length | 860 mm |
| Width at base | 382 mm |
| Width at top | 432 mm |
| Weight | 5159 g |
It is of wood covered with gesso (white paint and binder) and painted, and covered on the inside with coarse canvas soaked in glue and then lined with parchment. It is painted with the arms of Wimpfen, or an eagle displayed sable holding a key in its beak. Inside there are two bars for the grip and a hook and staple for the carrying strap.Now, according to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspis), the classical Greek hoplon/aspis was approximately 0.9m m diameter, weighed something like 7.3 kg, and had similar arrangements to the pavise for its carriage on the march and into battle.
Therefore, if you believe that Greek hoplites could charge whilst carrying an aspis, then I think you should also accept that it was possible to charge with this type of pavise.
8)
Oddly enough, I was researching the Royal Armouries pavises yesterday as part of a blog conversation with Jon (mainly about decoration). Most of the collection have details of dimensions, including weight. Note that Nick's example is a large "hand pavise", not one of the big body pavises (which tend to be about 1.2m long and weigh about 7.5-10 kg). See this one (https://royalarmouries.org/collection/object/object-514) from Zwickau. Quite a few museums have pavises in their collections - there's a nice collection in Philadelpia for example - but write ups often focus on the decoration rather than construction and use.
Going back to the Achaemenids, I will naturally defer to Duncan, but whilst the Persian infantry seem to have stood firm at Marathon and Plataea, thus not inconsistent with the assumptions about sparabara, equally at Thermopylae they were the ones advancing to contact. Now, maybe not a "charge", maybe a slow but steady advance to bow range with the Greeks being the ones who then closed the last few paces rather than just sitting and taking it, but...
The Immortals are certainly portrayed at Persepolis with more conventional shields, so unless just parade items, I have never assumed them to be sparabara, assuming that was a real thing.
EDIT - probably dodgy of me to assume the Persepolis lads are necessarily Immortals - let us just say Guardsmen of an indeterminate nomenclature.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on November 04, 2024, 04:56:45 AMThe DBMM army list says that French pavisiers drove off English longbowmen at Nogent-sur-Seine in 1359, but some googling fails to find any details of that battle.
The battle is covered in Chapter 196 of Johnes Froissart. You can read it here (https://elfinspell.com/FroissartCh190Style.html)
The relevant passage is
At this time, however, the French infantry, who could not make such haste as the men at arms, arrived. This infantry were full nine hundred men, and, being armed with lances and large shields†, broke through the line of the archers and flung them in disorder; for their shields were so strong, that the arrows made no impression on them. These pavise equipped infantry are obviously moving offensively but probably not charging. Firstly, because medieval heavy infantry were naturally plodding and secondly, they were attacking uphill.
Quote from: DBS on November 04, 2024, 02:52:26 PMGoing back to the Achaemenids, I will naturally defer to Duncan, but whilst the Persian infantry seem to have stood firm at Marathon and Plataea, thus not inconsistent with the assumptions about sparabara, equally at Thermopylae they were the ones advancing to contact. Now, maybe not a "charge", maybe a slow but steady advance to bow range with the Greeks being the ones who then closed the last few paces rather than just sitting and taking it, but...
The Immortals are certainly portrayed at Persepolis with more conventional shields, so unless just parade items, I have never assumed them to be sparabara, assuming that was a real thing.
EDIT - probably dodgy of me to assume the Persepolis lads are necessarily Immortals - let us just say Guardsmen of an indeterminate nomenclature.
Well ... the Medes and the Kissians attacked at Thermopylai before the Immortals did, and they were both contingents equipped as
sparabara, so that's no reason for believing the Immortals weren't. And there are guards with
spara (http://www.soniahalliday.com/category-view3.php?pri=IR6544-15JT.jpg)at Persepolis, the only Achaemenid depictions we have IIRC, and no reason to believe they're not Immortals, if anyone at Persepolis is. (Always assuming the Immortals actually existed...). And the Persian infantry with a
spara-wall at Plataia are probably Immortals, if only because it is not at all clear what other Persian infantry were present.
The question that occurs to me is whether they, or any Persian infantry indeed, always fought with the wicker shield-wall, or if they had other gear available (shades of the hypaspist discussion).
Oh no! Don't start changing history now :o
I have 560 little figures fighting for my Persians in the Sparabara style. I don't want to have to replace them.
Quote from: DBS on November 04, 2024, 02:52:26 PMI have never assumed them to be sparabara, assuming that was a real thing.
This remark has made me think. What do our sources tell us about sparabara fighting? I remember Plataea with the wall of shields, which had to be broken through. This seems to be static. What do we have on how this formation operated offensively?
Quote from: dwkay57 on November 05, 2024, 08:37:18 AMOh no! Don't start changing history now :o
I have 560 little figures fighting for my Persians in the Sparabara style. I don't want to have to replace them.
No. The inference is that you need to paint another 560 to represent all the other types! ;)
In my view, given the incontrovertible fact that Newline Design's Immortals in campaign dress come with those shields with cutouts at the side (Boeotian shields?), that is what they must have had. Sparabara can go with Medes, Kissians and other hoi poloi.
Is charging really a thing for infantry? It is for cavalry and chariots since the horse's mass can be very effective at breaking through an infantry line. Infantry though seem to just move forward to contact or not move and let the enemy come to them. Some move faster than others but the final result is the same. There's no actual impact in an infantry charge. Every infantry formation can move so it really depends on what they decide to do, no?
Keraunos, within my satrapal Persian armies I have enough of the other "types" to enable Xerxes men to stick with their fencing panels. If each of my 6mm armies is to be unique in some way then the Sparabara style is that for the Persians.
I think "charge" in our wargaming terminology just means "any advance into hand-to-hand melee across a reasonable frontage and formation (to exclude a couple of individuals skirmishing)" Justin. So the speed and manner in which they do it will be dependent on cultures, style and level of enthusiasm.
Based on what's been discussed so far, it does seem that the sparabara drill book was to advance, halt, shoot, and either keep shooting or repeat if the enemy fell back.
Quote from: dwkay57 on November 06, 2024, 01:04:11 PMI think "charge" in our wargaming terminology just means "any advance into hand-to-hand melee across a reasonable frontage and formation (to exclude a couple of individuals skirmishing)"
This may be a cause of some confusion in the question. To me, and perhaps others, charging implies greater speed (trot, run) than advancing to contact (walk, shamble). Doing the latter while impersonating a mobile fence seems more practical than the former.
The only things which would preclude infantry charging would be the equipment preventing it, or the formation being unable to maintain coherence - which would be a clear no for anyone except a fool.
So if the spear was too long (Swiss suggest that's not a thing), or the shield was too big to run with (can't see that being true if you can fight behind it), then I think you really only need to consider whether they could maintain formation.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on November 05, 2024, 09:20:01 AMIs charging really a thing for infantry?
Good question!
I'd suggest that running towards your opponents while screaming a war-cry was a pretty common thing, just because it works your guys up, and there's always a chance that the other side will fail their morale test and run away.
I'd guess you're more interested in what happens if that doesn't work...
If you believe in othismos, then obviously you're going to charge into contact, because it gives you an initial advantage in the pushing.
I guess the key determinant may have been how well armoured and shielded you were. If you have a big, heavy shield then use it to role the opponents over. If you don't have a shield and armour then you'd probably stop, and engage in some fancy sword play.
Did cataphracted horses know they were wearing armour? I.e. did their behaviour change because they knew they were safer in it?
I think Mark has already flagged the key part - maintaining a coherent formation. You can run like a mass of individuals or walk like a formed body. Which you do depends on your "way of war".
Quote from: Cantabrigian on November 08, 2024, 10:48:54 AMIf you believe in othismos, then obviously you're going to charge into contact, because it gives you an initial advantage in the pushing.
I think Paul Bardunias' findings suggest that, if you are reconstructing an aspis-pushing form of othismos, running is no help. Steady advance followed by steady pressure, rather than a series of shocks, works better.
As to whether
othismos existed, its not really the question. "A phenomenon called
othismos is mentioned in our sources. What was it?" is better but we flogged it to death in the past here, so interested newcomers should search those out to see what we made of it. Spoiler alert - we ended up divided on the question :)
I'm still steeped in WRG 5th terminology which is why a charge is "any move intended to result in hand-to-hand contact" (page 23), but accept that the rate at which troops close is dependent upon fighting style, especially those which relied on close formation coherence.
I can envisage how a front rank of pavise bearers backed by others with long spears can trundle (for want of a better word) into melee but I'm not sure it works for Persian Sparabara formations if the rear ranks were archers who would need to be at some point in time stationary to shoot (unless they were trying out as a Merry Man) and would require some form of ranging instruction to be shouted at the rear ranks.
So, in summary, you can amble or stroll into contact with a pavise, but no +1 for vigourously charging. Guess my Genoese crossbowmen won't need to be drawing their swords anytime soon?
Under my rules, it is something like that Steve. Sparabara infantry do get a bonus for charging but not as great as other types. However, they do get a high "point of impact volley" bonus which comes into effect if they are charged.
Quote from: stevenneate on December 24, 2024, 01:56:03 AMGuess my Genoese crossbowmen won't need to be drawing their swords anytime soon?
I would suggest that, if they have to draw their swords, something has gone wrong somewhere :)
That reminds me of a mate of mine telling me when he was deployed to Iraq for desert shield/storm. He had a medical orderly in the hq field hospital
He said that he had been issued with a gun. He added that if he had to use it, things would have gone seriously wrong...!
Quote from: Imperial Dave on December 24, 2024, 10:45:40 AMHe said that he had been issued with a gun. He added that if he had to use it, things would have gone seriously wrong...!
Damn right. Presume either 9milly or SMG. The latter not useless, but the other consideration will be the level of... marksmanship... to be expected of non combat arms. Same principle applies to earlier periods, accepting less of a concept of rear echelon troops.
It was a Browning HP :)
HP? I didn't know you could get guns by hire purchase ;)
I thought it was Hewlett Packard. If it's anything like their printers the gun would be really cheap but the bullets cost a fortune
Quite a saucey gun to have though.
Very house of parliament
High power....
A solid but outdated gun even in the 90s