I quick question though not necessarily a quick answer.... :D
I am building a Strathclyde (Welsh) army of both the early and late period for that kingdom ie "sub roman" 5th/6th Century variety and also 9th/10th Century
My question relates to the infantry type predominanting in both time periods. My error was to look at the army lists for a wide variety of rule-sets rather than looking for the written historical evidence (although not huge!)
The 1st period sees the rump of a border/limitanei force so auxilliary in origin but likely several generations "local". I maintain that auxilliary troops lost most of the distinction between them and legionary forces in terms of modus operandi so would class as close order medium/heavy infantry supporting a strike cavalry force.
6th edition WRG would class them as LMI! Most recent rule lists them as close order as is my inclination (for instance Dux Bellorum classes sub roman infantry as shieldwall). Therefore I am relatively happy that close order, shield, helmet and spear is reasonable. Whether they would be javelin armed or long spear armed is another matter! Some small looser order "warband" type troops might suppliment the main force
The 2nd period is somewhat more problematic for me. Pressures and interactions with Vikings, Picts, Scots and Angles must have had its effect on the main infantry type. I think I am still leaning towards a shieldwall type force (in its entirety) but with greater variety of weapon types and probably a lesser role on the battlefield ie more reliance on the cavalry.
Ok, so just thought I would throw it open for debate...... :)
And do we have any takers - or for that matter suggestions, pointers to sources or even inspired guesses from anyone?
Can we infer anything from Saxon and Norman encounters with the Welsh?
For what it's worth my guess is this:
1. A nation's military tends to emulate the methods and weaponry of its more aggressive and martially successful neighbours. Strathclyde was a Briton kingdom in lowland Scotland. It would have been attacked by Picts to the north and perhaps Irish coming over by sea from the west, hence it probably would have emulated their methods.
There is clear evidence that Wall forts like Housteads were occupied until well into the 6th century, though the conversion of the Housteads grain barn into a feasting hall suggests that the military presence went with a mutation in the character of the troops stationed there.
This seems to suggest a predominantly infantry force with perhaps a core of cavalry.
2. There is a praise poem (forget its name) about a British king in the Strathclyde area who got plastered with mead along with his men, then went out and fought a vastly superior Saxon opponent. The Britons were defeated. The interest here is that the British force was all on horseback and there is no mention of an infantry component. Patrick, what's the name of that poem? It contains the first historical reference to Arthur: speaking of one of the warriors who died it mentions that 'he was no Arthur'.
So a small force entirely or substantially mounted.
Would that be 'Gododdin'?
Yep, that's it.
Quote from: Holly on May 26, 2013, 07:24:14 PMI am building a Strathclyde (Welsh) army of both the early and late period for that kingdom ie "sub roman" 5th/6th Century variety and also 9th/10th Century
My question relates to the infantry type predominanting in both time periods. My error was to look at the army lists for a wide variety of rule-sets rather than looking for the written historical evidence (although not huge!)
The 1st period sees the rump of a border/limitanei force so auxilliary in origin but likely several generations "local".
This may be valid for much of post-Roman Britain, but such northern British kingdoms as Strathclyde and Gododdin had not been part of the Roman province, so it's hard to see why their forces should be derived from Roman limitanei. Some copying is possible, of course, but not certain.
QuoteI maintain that auxilliary troops lost most of the distinction between them and legionary forces in terms of modus operandi
A lot of people seem to think this (even discounting those who see no great difference between legionary and auxiliary infantry tactics in the first place, even back in the early Empire), but I don't think I've ever really seen it argued with evidence.
QuoteThe 2nd period is somewhat more problematic for me. Pressures and interactions with Vikings, Picts, Scots and Angles must have had its effect on the main infantry type. I think I am still leaning towards a shieldwall type force (in its entirety) but with greater variety of weapon types
There seems to be some disagreement as to whether Galloway was ever part of the kingdom of Strathclyde, but even if not, it was right next door; and somehow by the 12th century the Galwegians at the Battle of the Standard are delivering fast, wild, undisciplined charges just like the archetypal "warband".
Y Gododdin is partly stylised with literary licence for the time. Although it mentions a force of 300 cavalry this could just infer the dignitaries and their retinue with supporting infantry just not mentioned! :) The interesting thing about the poem is that we are not even really sure of the place of the battle. The de facto fall back position for many is that it is Catterick in Yorkshire but its very far south for an engagement at that time. My own two penneth worth (digressing slightly from my own thread!) is that it was fought along a shoreline on the east coast between the Firth of Forth and the Tyne
Interesting info re the occupation of Housteads into the 6th Century so thanks for that, I might factor that in :)
Thanks Duncan for the input as well. I take your point re the fact that the North British tribes were not directly controlled by Rome and formed part of the buffer zone. They did cooperate with the Roman forces so will possibly have had some training in tactics and copying of armaments. Logic would dictate that loyal areas would be encouraged to continue to soak pressure up on behalf of more regular Roman forces and so may have had logistic and material support (think Vietnam, Korea, Afganistan etc).
Fair point also on the auxilliary and legionary troops, I guess I am just being a sheep here! :D
Also interesting point about the Galwegians. I suppose it depends on the area and the ruling elite set up. A strong centralised lord/king would be more likely to have a more structured force in terms of numbers, obligations and formations? A looser confederacy arrangement might see almost a re-emergence of "celtic" type warbands as you describe.
Keep the info coming all, this is just the kind of stuff I need to whet my whistle and keep my painting mojo going!
"Also interesting point about the Galwegians. I suppose it depends on the area and the ruling elite set up. A strong centralised lord/king would be more likely to have a more structured force in terms of numbers, obligations and formations? A looser confederacy arrangement might see almost a re-emergence of "celtic" type warbands as you describe."
I think a stronger king might have a bigger retinue but in the last anaysis for big numbers you need the free farmers. The fighting technique of the latter could be 'warband' or 'shieldwall' I tend to the former but its also possible that wealthier farmers might serve as light cavalry. There are early Roman references to north British cavalry.
One area which you ought to look at for comparisons are the North Welsh - in the early period, there is every reason to assume cultural relations existed (Y Gododdin comes to us from Welsh sources, for example). Later, the peoples will be separated but the later development of Welsh tactics may useful to examine. One key thing I'd note is we are at risk of wargamer-speak in dividing "warband" from "shieldwall". North Welsh armies in the early Middle Ages are capable of ambushing from woods, treking over rough terrain or, if confronted by cavalry, forming solid spear formations like schiltrons. It is plausible that their northern cousins could do the same.
Quote from: Erpingham on June 08, 2013, 03:02:02 PM
One key thing I'd note is we are at risk of wargamer-speak in dividing "warband" from "shieldwall". North Welsh armies in the early Middle Ages are capable of ambushing from woods, treking over rough terrain or, if confronted by cavalry, forming solid spear formations like schiltrons. It is plausible that their northern cousins could do the same.
Yes, very good point indeed. One that is often overlooked in many wargame rules....change of formation. For example countless discussions on the Alexandrian Hypaspists have illustrated that units were able to operate in different modes on the battlefield. I know that the counter argument is that many wargame rules already take account of this eg DBX and are "factored" in.
If we can have mounted dismounting to become infantry in a wargame then why not allow a warband to reform as shieldwall as well (in old money this would be going from LMI to MI)?
My thought is that these 'loose' order troops dispense with formation to move, get to where they want to be an reform at that point. Rather like a crowd rushing up to a fence. So enables quick movement but at the expense of staying power.
I decided against allowing troops to dismount/remount in a battle in TDIC as I couldn't find any reference to it. Same with different weapon options, those I believe would have been chosen before the battle starts.
Different formations, yes lots of those including shieldwall.
I think it would have been difficult for any troops to change formation in the face of the enemy, particularly more irregular types.
All troops are caspable of moving in a loose formation, but if they intend to fight in a dense formation they would want to be well set before the opposition got anywhere near.
Well we have the example of the Roman legionaries, used to fighting in Spain then rushing to take a position and then forming up and beating their enemies. So thats the sort of thing I used as my example when I came to writing the rules.
Roman legionaries are at one end of the spectrum, Strathclyde infantry nearer the other end IMHO
Ah I was responding to this
QuoteI think it would have been difficult for any troops to change formation in the face of the enemy, particularly more irregular types.
I suspect hat Dave is mostly right there. In Spain the locals form dense skirmish lines and then quickly form a wedge to attack. Maybe Romans learn to do that, but it would be a local response to a local situation. I could see that troops might well close up to face cavalry or form testudo ( Germans do that against Caesar) but isn't that different from operating in one order and then moving to operate in another? Forming up properly with the right people in the right places takes time and I doubt that major formations could do that at the drop of a hat.
From a gaming point of view, it is interesting to explore. I think it is possible that troops loosen up to move. I also suspect they could close up tighter (a shieldwall seems to have been able to tighten to overlapped shield order when halted on the defensive). But are these formation changes as such or just a standard response to circumstances? Do we even model them but just assume in our move distances and combat factors this is what happened?
One we might consider is if strathclyde infantry might be allowed to form a circular anti-cavalry formation (the later Welsh could do it , some say Picts did and, of course, later lowland Scots). But again, the point about forming such a thing mid-battle would come into consideration.
Perhaps there is an analagy with Napoleoinc era troops.
Most rules that allow infantry to form square also allow for the option of the square not being properly formed if they leave it too late.
Perhaps allow some troops to try to change formation mid battle but allow for the possibilty of failure ?
Then again is the benefit of such an option greater than the added complexity it brings to a rules system?
This presumably depends upon the tactical level at which the system is set: if the basic units are c.100 men, like a later Greek lochos, such considerations do matter. If the basic unit is c.5,000 men - a Roman legion - such nuances can be built into higher movement costs and the assumption that subunit commanders will err on the side of caution rather than try to get clever within enemy charge reach.
It would be worry looking at wan on this
I have a memory of a wab player at Brit con bemused when he charged knights or something into picts in loose order to get them out of the way.
Neither player knew in advance that some special rule for picts allowed them to react by forming some fancy anti cavalry spear formation, which trounced the chargers.
Neither guy seemed happy with the outcome, but they had to play it as it was competition rules
Very hard to start along a line of reaction formation changes without ending up with such super special troop types emerging
Quote from: Mark G on July 30, 2013, 12:20:10 PM
Neither player knew in advance that some special rule for picts allowed them to react by forming some fancy anti cavalry spear formation, which trounced the chargers.
The issue maybe is a question of time taken, and perhaps, as Patrick says, scale of action. Assume a dozen horsmen crest a rise and spot two dozen picts (and vice versa). It is possible those Picts could clump together in all round defence before the cavalry reach them. What if 200 cavalry surprised a thousand Picts? I think the cavalry would be on them before they sorted themselves out.
In the absence of evidence though we are speculating on analogous cases. Scottish infantry at Bannockburn (day 1) seem to have moved into a position and formed an all round defence to block the advance of English cavalry, for example, and Swiss infantry formed a circle at Laupen as the enemy approached. In neither case would I say in charge reach of cavalry but while cavalry approached. So, possibly, a reaction-driven move might be valid with some risk of not completing but within the time taken for a charge, no.
An excellent idea, I have seen it done by a test being required, perhaps a morale test (that allows better troops to have more chance of succeeding).
Such a formation should ideally (going by Anthony's historical guidelines) be adopted before opponents came within charge reach and hence not need a test in normal circumstances.
For non-normal circumstances, or dilatory play, some mechanism for establishing whether a last-minute scramble produces an effective formation would be required. If one has, say, 2-minute turns, then the mechanics, movements and timings of such evolutions have to be quite precise. Either the men make it or they do not - the tape measure can decide the outcome.
If one has, say, 20-minute turns, then there is some latitude for divergent possibilities because of the abstract nature of time-and-motion relationships. A reaction roll (modified by both sides' leadership rating and troop quality) can decide the question of whether the defenders begin forming their spear-hedge in good time or leave it too late in the circumstances.
some good considerations and suggestions here
my own take on it would be loose formation allowed to close up after a reaction/morale test. if passed they would close up over the course of 2 phases. If caught after phase 1 would be in disorder and penalised on the factors for combat dice
just my 2 penneth worth but having been a reenactor for many moons, even irregulars would be able to shift from "loose" formation to "shieldwall" and believe me, its instinctive when there is a large body of troops coming towards you!
I don't doubt that people can clump up quite rapidly. However, the big problem is whether they can retain the ability to fight effectively. That might be impacted through the leaders being wrongly positioned or because they are too close together for effective weapon use. This happens to the Romans against the Nervii at the Sambre, it happens to Crassus men against the Parthian cataphracts. (I suspect that Patrick could supply us a quote there).
So ye s they can condense quickly, but perhaps they should lose fighting e defective ness as a result?
Roy
yes, would depend on the troop type and their familiarity with the maneuver. Could have a distinction between inferior, ordinary and superior troops for DBx or good old fashioned A,B,C (D/E) troops for other systems
I suspect that missile effectiveness would definitely suffer if "ad-hoc" closing up but actually think that hand to hand combat would improve (defensively anyway) - think Arrian and order of array against the Alans or Scots schiltron
Regulars would be better at it than irregulars
offensive and defensive values for troops rather than just bog standard generic combat factors?
Which was my point, Roy.
Emergency reactive defensive formations should make themselves harder to hurt, but never be capable of hurting the thing they were so frightened of that they had to make an emergency reaction in the firstplace.
Else they become a winning tactic.
Charge a real key force with utterly vulnerable dross, then pass the reaction and magically change into the formation to beat it.
Which is just nonesense.
Quote from: Mark G on August 03, 2013, 08:03:19 PM
Emergency reactive defensive formations should make themselves harder to hurt, but never be capable of hurting the thing they were so frightened of that they had to make an emergency reaction in the firstplace.
If we look at a (maybe) similar formation, the Scottish schiltron, this was well capable of hurting the 'thing they were frightened of', but only if that 'thing' obliged by charging home.
So if a troop type is permitted to react to form a 'hurtful' defensive formation, such as a spear-hedge, perhaps its opponent should be permitted to attempt a reaction to halt its charge or to manoeuvre to avoid the new defensive formation.
Schiltrons were not formed as a reaction to being charged
Not unless Mel gibson is personally directing
Good one, Mark - my basic point was that if the target changes from soft to spiky, maybe the attacker should also get a chance to change his mind.
Maybe Patrick, but maybe not. It all depends upon the degree to which the attacking unit is committed early on to a course of action and control has been lost. The defenders, however, might be working to a prearranged plan to close up . Cavalry are much harder to stop than infantry so , if a large force of knights , say 2000 of them, 3 deep, with a frontage of 1000 yards is set in motion I really wonder if they could be stopped?
First, I would wonder about Strathclyders working to a plan of this nature. Second I would wonder about 2,000 knights in the British Isles in the 5th/6th and 9th/10th centuries. ;)
Getting back to the basic topic (and apologies, Dave, for not picking this up earlier):
Quote from: Holly on August 03, 2013, 08:02:10 PM
offensive and defensive values for troops rather than just bog standard generic combat factors?
Perhaps this can be handled by adding charge and shieldwall/spear hedge bonuses, and/or deductions from the opponent's combat factor when facing a spear hedge (maybe lose the charge bonus for a start). Anything that changes the
relative combat capabilities of the sides involved should work.
I'm just repeating my mantra on rules.
forget the exceptions, just make the normal cases work well.
Formation changes on the field, if the can be demonstrated in our period at all (so far not well), will only skew rules to overuse them.
So don't allow it on the first place, and have a better game for it
I wouldnt want to unbalance any armies or rule-sets by making potential "super-troops" by allowing structural flexibility but I would still like provision where I believe it should be allowed
adding points costs for flexible formations is one way (been done in some rulesets) or penalising the upsides ie make the units/elements more vulnerable either side of the formation change
or both!
My view is that if you allow your model soldiers to use a formation that improves their effectiveness, then their points costs must be increased. I mean thats what points are all about, aren't they? costing the effectiveness of model soldiers.
Quote from: Mark G on August 04, 2013, 06:35:34 PM
Formation changes on the field, if the can be demonstrated in our period at all (so far not well), will only skew rules to overuse them.
To take medieval infantry, formation changes were very rare - most non-linear formations took time (triangles, blocks, circles) and were done before the action started. The only one I know of happening during a battle is to form an all round defence against cavalry. So definitely limit use.
That's at Bouvines I take it. Infantry there form a hollow circle against victorious enemy cavalry and they can apparently open lanes to allow knights to charge out. That does suggest a high level of drill and control.
Roy
Quote from: aligern on August 05, 2013, 02:05:18 PM
That's at Bouvines I take it. Infantry there form a hollow circle against victorious enemy cavalry and they can apparently open lanes to allow knights to charge out. That does suggest a high level of drill and control.
Roy
Along with Arques and Stamford Bridge (maybe not historical but in response to sudden appearance of cavalry and the formation adopted suggest this describes genuine Early Medieval Scandinavian tactics), not forgetting two I mentioned earlier. Overall, the spread of similar tactics over a wide area of Northern Europe probably means we are dealing with something in the standard infantry "playbook", so legitimate to allow in rules, I'd think.
As to drill and control, not sure. Control and organisation definitely - as we've already discussed, forming a small ad-hoc anti-cavalry clump may be instinctive to a stray handful of men (way back in my SK days, 20 of us could form one in seconds, so real warriors under real threat probably could too), but forming something with hundreds of men and some kind of order (the Arques and Stamford Bridge examples have them organising the ranks and the command group taking position in the centre) must have taken longer and more organisation.
when I was reenacting, all it needed was one good set of lungs (an NCO) and as soon as one person heard an order to close up and overlap shields, everyone else took up the cry and the move was instinctive. If it was the horseboys, it was quicker ;D
Of course it was easier when static, ie receiving a charge at the halt
Quote from: Holly on August 05, 2013, 04:53:10 PM
when I was reenacting, all it needed was one good set of lungs (an NCO) and as soon as one person heard an order to close up and overlap shields, everyone else took up the cry and the move was instinctive.
And pretty authentic demo of how orders were passed in the Middle Ages :) However, I suspect that you (like us all those years ago) were operating in a smallish group who all knew one another. Co-ordinating it so a dozen or a hundred of those clusters, who may not have fought together before that day, formed into a larger, mutually supporting body rather than a lot of little clumps which could be picked off was probably much slower. My touchstone for Early medieval battle is Snorri's description of Sticklestad 1030, where you get the rebels explaining how to form up (see who is stood next to you and stick with them, note where your standard is and follow it) and the chaos of one wing picking up the wrong battlecry and ending up in a fight with their own side, which had to be sorted out (which it was - blue on blue clashes didn't always pan out that well in civil war contexts). Keeping an inexperienced army from falling into chaos was one of the big command challenges. And, of course, why a small, experienced "band of brothers" could punch well above their weight.
a very good point you make there.
I noticed the difference between "fighting" at a small reenactment battle (eg Tintagel or Cosmeston) and say a dirty great big one like Tewkesbury. We had to form units according to familiarity at Tewkesbury to ensure we knew where we all were and what we were doing. We used to use key signals for our own unit. All orders were preceeded by the unit/group we were in or supporting eg "Herbert's retinue, halt and prepare to receive!"
Definitely more confusion and loss of sight of others on a big battlefield.
Getting back more to the Strathclyde Army, what we have to remember is that there had been a lot of Norse and Saxon settlement. Indeed the 'road' between York and Dublin, two 'Viking' cities runs through this area.
When I build my Strathclyde army way back, for WRG 6th edition I basically used round shielded Viking and Saxon figures, and gave round shields to some figures who were more 'celtic' :-)