Could cavalry do more than the 90 degree wheel the tacticians seem to indicate? If they could do more are there any examples from the sources showing what they could do? Could a cavalry line wheel?
There are a couple of examples in the sources of cavalry charging enemy by squadron, e.g. Gaugamela. What exactly does that mean, what are the implications for how cavalry moved and manoeuvred by subunit?
What are the implications for wargaming rules that make some attempt at historical accuracy?
I'm uncertain on all the answers so look forward to input.
There is video of the Roman Turma wheeling that the reenactment groups did about 5 years ago, on YouTube.
A few of us saw it live.
Short version is, it's really slow wheeling even ten horses and two ranks because the pivot horse takes up space, the second can't move into the first space until the first line is fully past, and isn't easy to turn a horse on the spot.
Long version is about the importance of maintaining formation.
If your happy that un forming and reforming is fine on a battlefield, then wheeling is a doddle.
If you think cavalry are dead if out of formation horsemen are caught, then it's as slow as the video.
There have been prior threads that expand on the above
Sure, we've discussed before how cavalry wheel. My interest is if they wheeled in increments of less than 90 degrees and what else they could do under battlefield conditions.
One thing about the reenactment groups - do they ever wheel in anything less than 90 degrees? I presume they base their manoeuvres on military manuals; do any manuals - Ancient, Mediaeval, Renaissance, etc. - talk about cavalry wheeling in increments of less than 90 degrees? Besides the shapes cavalry formations could adopt, do they talk about how those formations could move? I presume countermarching was a thing. How about insertion or interjection? How did light infantry insert themselves into a cavalry formation without getting trampled by the horses?
I think there must have been a good reason for forming wedges and romboids. It may have been that they were manoeuvrable, even if they weren't as manoeuvrable as figures on a wargames table
Keep in mind that armies agreed to fight.
They didn't stumble into each other, at least one side would always have selected a field and the other almost always accepted battle there.
Usually both did. And they formed up facing each other.
So why would you need to consider wheels that weren't related to positions that arise from a starting square go?
If it's possible to wheel 90 degrees, it is therefore also possible to wheel 1,2,3,4,5,....86,87,88,89 degrees.
As to whether it happened IRL on the battlefield - when we talked about this WRT infantry, the votes were: Justin - No, Rest of the World - Yes. :o Then it came down to whether we could conceive of a situation in which a turn of less than 90 degrees (or between 90 and 180) might be tactically useful.
Byzantine manuals are chock full of cavalry manoeuvre stuff and while I don't have leisure to peruse them at the moment, they are the place to look first ('Anonymous Byzantine', Maurice/Maurikios, Leo et al).
Plus, yes, wedges, rhomboids, flights of cranes. Can cranes turn only in 90 degree increments? Discuss.
Cavalry charging by squadrons, charging and retiring etc - clearly this is what they did, and I don't think the process has ever been clearly elucidated by any modern author. Yet it happened. Xenophon,
Cavalry Commander and
Horsemanship will have some useful bits.
Quote
How did light infantry insert themselves into a cavalry formation without getting trampled by the horses?
Carefully...
Quote from: RichT on November 20, 2020, 09:17:35 AM
If it's possible to wheel 90 degrees, it is therefore also possible to wheel 1,2,3,4,5,....86,87,88,89 degrees.
As to whether it happened IRL on the battlefield - when we talked about this WRT infantry, the votes were: Justin - No, Rest of the World - Yes.
We few, we happy few, we band of brother. ???
Although it is written much later, have you tried L.E. Nolan's "Cavalry - Its History and Tactics" (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cavalry-History-Captain-L-Nolan/dp/B00089PXJQ)?
Quotedo any manuals - Ancient, Mediaeval, Renaissance, etc. - talk about cavalry wheeling in increments of less than 90 degrees?
When we last discussed, I found several 19th century manuals that did. Nick has mentioned Nolan, which I'm sure was one. There was one on US cavalry manoeuvers which was well illustrated with diagrams IIRC. I'll see if I can find it again.
As to squadron manoeuvers, the example of Charles the Bold's 1473 ordnance gives some ideas
Furthermore, my lord (the duke) ordains that, in order that the said troops may be better trained and exercised in the use of arms and better practised and instructed when something happens, when they are in garrison, or have the time and leisure to do this, the captains of the squadrons and the chambres are from time to time to take some of their men-at-arms out into the fields, sometimes partly, sometimes fully armed, to practice charging with the lance, keeping in close formation while charging, (how) to charge briskly, to defend their ensigns, to withdraw on command, and to rally, each helping the other, when so ordered, and how to withstand a charge.
Light infantry inserting themselves. That's going to be easy enough if the cavalry are in a loose order. The Germans are described as running along with the horses, rather like Lady Butler's highlanders. When near the opposing force the infantry firm up as a rallying point for the cavalry's fluid manoeuvres. Presumably the cavalry can close up to move and fight without the infantry.
As to changing face, there is a Roman formation, the globus. This is a bit like a modern infantry unit forming a blob. The soldiers mass together without rank or file and the officer leads. It is very flexible and very useful for say rough terrain because no one has to worry about alignment. When the desired position is arrived at the globus then reforms ranks.
As wargaming generally reproduces actions within a few bowshot of the enemy I doubt if complex manoeuvres are attempted . Let's say that the troops are changing position half a mile from the enemy, that's about five bowshots. It would take an opposing cavalry unit three minutes to charge and hit an opposing unit wheeling in front of it. In that timescale all the wheeling unit can do is flee. I know some sets of rules have, in effect, a variable groundscale so a unit can move faster and do whizzy things like expanding, contracting and wheeling as long as it's out of bowshot of the enemy, but it really is more of a fix to allow wargamers unrestricted movement, which they love. A unit of cavalry some 200/yards long is incredibly vulnerable if it forms front to flank, i.e. presents its flank to a formed enemy. I wonder if it might not fall apart whilst attempting to do it.
Roy
Quote from: aligern on November 20, 2020, 11:13:42 AM
Light infantry inserting themselves. That's going to be easy enough if the cavalry are in a loose rder. Tge Germans are described as running along with the horses, rather like Lady Butler's highlanders. When near the opposing firce the infantry firm up as a rallying point for the cavalry's fluid manoeuvres. Presumably the cav@kry can close up to move and fight without the infantry.
My own take is that a loose order was the default arrangement for cavalry, with files spaced far enough apart to enable horses to turn in place. That would certainly allow infantry to insert themselves between the files without getting in the way of the horses.
Quote from: aligern on November 20, 2020, 11:13:42 AMAs to changing face, there is a Roman formation, the globus. This is a bit lije a modern infantry unit firming a blob. The soldiers mass together without rank or file and the officer leads. It is very flexible and very useful for say rough terrain because no no one has to worry about alignment. When the desired position is arrived at the globus then reforms ranks .
It sounds like a natural disposition, essentially letting horses travel as they would in a herd.
Quote from: aligern on November 20, 2020, 11:13:42 AMAs wargaming generally reproduces action s within a few bowshot of the enemy I doubt if complex manoeuvres are attempted . lets say that the troops are changing position half a mike from the enemy, that's about five bowshots. It would take an opposing cavalry unit three minutes to charge and hit an opposing unit wheeling in front of it. In that timescale all the wheeling unit can do is flee. I know some sets if rules have, in effect, a variable groundscale so a unit can move faster and di whizzy things like expanding , contracting and wheeling as long as its out of bowshot of the enemy, but it really is more of a fix to allow wargamers unrestricted movement, which they love. A unit of cavalry some 200/yards long is incredibly vulnerable if it forms front to flank, i.e. presents its flank to a formed enemy. I wonder if it might not fall apart whilst attempting to do it.
Roy
If the unit is small enough so as to be able to wheel quickly and then wheel back again, the entire cavalry force might be tempted to try something. Take a cavalry line typically 6 ranks deep. If the subunit is square in shape then you are looking at about 12 files (the tacticians talk about cavalry squares having twice as many files as ranks (and sometimes three times as many). So a cavalry subunit would have about 72 riders, not too many to execute a snappy wheel.
The change of direction in Echellon Formations is always made by the word "Right" or " Left" for the degree
of wheel required, followed by the word "Forward," as soon the Troop is parallel to the new Line.
Regulations for the instruction, formations, and movements of the Cavalry Volume 2
By War office
Quote from: Erpingham on November 20, 2020, 12:56:10 PM
The change of direction in Echellon Formations is always made by the word "Right" or " Left" for the degree
of wheel required, followed by the word "Forward," as soon the Troop is parallel to the new Line.
Regulations for the instruction, formations, and movements of the Cavalry Volume 2
By War office
Does that mean "wheel right 90 degrees" or "wheel left 90 degrees"?
Quote from: Justin Swanton on November 20, 2020, 01:50:53 PM
Does that mean "wheel right 90 degrees" or "wheel left 90 degrees"?
No.
If you don't need to stay in period there are lots of cavalry drill manuals eg 'Instructions and Regulations for the Formations and Movements of the Cavalry' 1799. (GIYF).
p. 23
"Whenever the wheel made is less than the quarter circle... should the wheel be greater than the quarter circle..."
p. 25
"In this manner, without the constraint of formal wheels, a column, when not confined on its flanks, may be conducted in all kinds of winding and changeable directions"
Full of interesting stuff (well, interesting up to a point).
Quote from: RichT on November 20, 2020, 02:21:58 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on November 20, 2020, 01:50:53 PM
Does that mean "wheel right 90 degrees" or "wheel left 90 degrees"?
No.
If you don't need to stay in period there are lots of cavalry drill manuals eg 'Instructions and Regulations for the Formations and Movements of the Cavalry' 1799. (GIYF).
p. 23
"Whenever the wheel made is less than the quarter circle... should the wheel be greater than the quarter circle..."
p. 25
"In this manner, without the constraint of formal wheels, a column, when not confined on its flanks, may be conducted in all kinds of winding and changeable directions"
Full of interesting stuff (well, interesting up to a point).
Interesting as you say, but this seems to refer to cavalry columns on the march rather than under battle conditions. Naturalla cavalry units marching cross country in column will make all sorts of lesser or greater changes of direction as the terrain dictates. Is there any indication that that holds true of cavalry units under battle conditions, where the terrain, by mutual consent, is usually free of obstacles?
Why do you assume cavalry formed in a loose formation to allow a horse length between? That's acres of space, not even close enough to be called a formation anymore.
Light cavalry, scouts, fine. But heavy cavalry would be too easy to isolate without a solid frontal formation as close to the next boot as possible.
It's well documented that if loosely spaced cavalry charge each other, they just past by down the files, while if one side is closed the other cannot do that, and has to consider breaking off.
The Changes of Front and Position, by Oblique Echellon, are the safest that can be employed in the presence of, and near to, an Enemy ; they are almost equål in security to the march Of the Regiment in front, or to a uniform wheel of the Line; they can be used in the most critical situations, where the movements of the open Column could not be risked ; and they are more particularly to be used when the enemy's flank is to be gained by throwing a flank forward, or when one's own is to be secured, by throwing it back. The advantages attending them are, the preserving a general front during the March, and enabling a Body to change its Front or Position, either on a fixed or moving point, retaining the power at any moment to stop the movement, form the line, and repel an attack.
So, these wheels as part of an oblique echelon are to be performed "in the presence of, and near to, an enemy". Note that , wheeling on either a fixed or moving point, the movement can be stopped at any point. I would suggest that means it doesn't need to reach a multiple of 90 degrees.
I think , in fairness, what counts as near the enemy may be further than it would be before the advent of rifled muskets and effective artillery and therefore some elements of this drill is probably not applicable but at the same time I think the question about whether modern manuals allowed wheels not in increments of 90 degrees is certainly yes. The question then becomes why wouldn't ancient and medieval cavalry be able to do this? If cavalry are well enough ordered and drilled to wheel through 90 degrees, why not 45 degrees or 30? If they aren't well enough organised, would they loose enough to manoeuver globus-style to obtain a similar effect, as Roy suggests?
But this isn't wheeling. It's a line that remains in line whilst subunits either advance or stay back in echelon. The bit about the fixed or moving point refers to the fact that subunit from which the echelon originates may itself be moving or stationary.
Quoteenabling a Body to change its Front or Position, either on a fixed or moving point
Front here I believe means "facing" not "frontage". To change facing on a fixed or moving point is wheeling, I think. It could mean pivoting but I don't think this is a practical manoeuver as it would mean some units moving backwards while others moved forwards.
You'll need to more clearly define your terms then Justin.
I understand a moving wheel to be like the arch over a doorway, still a formed line but successively following the arc around from facing up to facing down with facing sideways at the top.
Wheel is like the door hinge, the innermost horse slowly turns on its position as the front maintains alignment.
I've found the US Cavalry manual I refered to earlier Poinsett's Cavalry Tactics (https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/002613185), originally published 1841.
The section on wheeling starts on page 146 (154 on the slide bar of the scanned copy). It explains how to do fixed and moving pivot wheels.
One point of similarity to the British manual quoted earlier
In every kind of wheel, the troopers should cease wheeling and retake the direct march at the command FORWARD, at whatever point of the wheel they may be :
As said, we do need to be careful about how we apply these later manuals to earlier periods but the idea that wheels of less than 90 degrees are never described doesn't fit the evidence.
Quote from: Mark G on November 20, 2020, 02:50:53 PM
Why do you assume cavalry formed in a loose formation to allow a horse length between? That's acres of space, not even close enough to be called a formation anymore.
Light cavalry, scouts, fine. But heavy cavalry would be too easy to isolate without a solid frontal formation as close to the next boot as possible.
It's well documented that if loosely spaced cavalry charge each other, they just past by down the files, while if one side is closed the other cannot do that, and has to consider breaking off.
Asklepiodotus describes individuals in a formation turning in place and makes it clear that this is done by cavalry as well as infantry:
| Right- or left-facing, then, is the movement of the individual men, 'by spear' to the right, and 'by shield' — called in the cavalry 'by rein' — to the left; this takes place when the enemy falls upon the flanks and we wish either to counter-attack, or else to envelop his wing, i.e., overlap the wing of the enemy. - Asklepiodotus: 10.2 14.37 |
This ability to turn in place would be essential for one cavalry formation in particular: the rhombus:
| It appears that the Thessalians were the first to use the rhomboid formation for their squadrons in cavalry fighting, and this with great success both in retreat and in attack, that they might not be thrown into disorder, since they were able to wheel [στρέφω - twist, turn] in any direction; for they placed their crack troopers on the sides and the very best of these at the angles; and they called the man at the fore angle a squadron-commander (ilarches), the one at the rear angle a squadron-closer (uragos), and those on the right and left angles flank-guards (plagiophylakes) - Asklepiodotus: 7.2
Thessalians mostly use the rhomboid formation. Jason the Thessalian, as the story goes, first invented this shape, but it seems to me that, making use of something discovered much earlier, he became famous from it. It is most suitable for every change and most secure against even the least chance of being taken from the rear or on the flanks. It has its leaders deployed at the corners of the rhombus; at the forward one the troop commander, on the right and on the left those called flank guards and at the remaining one the tail commander. It has the best riders on the sides of the rhombus as these prove greatly useful in battles. - Arrian: 16. |
Notice how the Greek in Asklepiodotus talks about 'twisting' or 'turning', not necessarily wheeling as a body, and how this is confirmed by Arrian who describes how the rhombus - unique amongst the cavalry formations - cannot be taken by the flank or rear. Notice also how Arrian calls all the horsemen at the corners of the rhombus 'leaders' or 'commanders'. The implication is clear - the rhombus changed direction by individual horsemen turning in place, not by the entire formation wheeling. This enabled it to change direction quickly and face a flank or rear attack instantly. But to be able to do this the files had to be a reasonable distance part, enough so each horse could turn without bumping into horses of neighbouring files. If the horses deployed in the equivalent of infantry open order, with about 2 yards per file, that would be enough.
The last part of Arrian's manual describes Roman cavalry performing charges and retirements, using countermarching to allow the riders to rotate in the formations. Countermarching presupposes spaces between the files wide enough to allow horses to retire down through them, which means an open order arrangement. Notice that this applies to Roman cavalry, not LH skirmishers. For heavy cavalry like cataphracts however, bunching up so that horses virtually touch each other would be necessary when charging infantry, as cataphracts would stay and engage in melee combat, and close order would be necessary to prevent the footmen from getting on the flanks of the riders.
Indian cavalry interestingly deployed closer together:
| The infantry should be arrayed such that the space between any two men is a sama [about 28cm, in between intermediate and close order]; cavalry with three samas [about 84cm or a little less than a yard]; chariots with four samas[i.e. slightly more than a yard] – Arthaśāstra: 10.5. |
That could create cavalry files somewhat less than 2 yards wide.
I'd be interested in the documentation on opposing cavalry units passing through each other.
Start with Frederick and work forward until rifled artillery
I think you have to define by 'manoeuvrable' as well
Cavalry sent round the back of the army to deal with something on the other wing were probably very manoeuvrable, in that formations would probably loosen out during the movement and then close up as they arrived at their destination facing the right direction.
If you regard file leaders and file closers as NCOs there are an awful lot of men in a cavalry unit to shout men back into formation and get stuff tightened up. Everybody knows who they're behind and who they're next to
Quote from: Erpingham on November 20, 2020, 04:26:37 PM
Quoteenabling a Body to change its Front or Position, either on a fixed or moving point
Front here I believe means "facing" not "frontage". To change facing on a fixed or moving point is wheeling, I think. It could mean pivoting but I don't think this is a practical manoeuver as it would mean some units moving backwards while others moved forwards.
Not sure front means facing. It seems to make more sense as the shape of the line - echeloned forward or back - whilst position refers to where the line now is. Notice that this manoeuvre is used to advance past an enemy's flank or to refuse one's own flank, neither of which require wheeling. Notice also the ability to reform the line instantly to receive an enemy attack, something which would be very difficult to do in mid wheel.
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 22, 2020, 05:33:23 AM
I think you have to define by 'manoeuvrable' as well
Cavalry sent round the back of the army to deal with something on the other wing were probably very manoeuvrable, in that formations would probably loosen out during the movement and then close up as they arrived at their destination facing the right direction.
If you regard file leaders and file closers as NCOs there are an awful lot of men in a cavalry unit to shout men back into formation and get stuff tightened up. Everybody knows who they're behind and who they're next to
My take is that for something like moving round the back of an enemy line to get to the other flank the cavalry would form column, and columns could wheel as they pleased since the column leader would have no problem letting the few horsemen in the front rank know exactly where he wanted to go, with every one else just following suit. But columns aren't fighting formations so this could be done only if there was no danger of being charged whilst en route.
Quote from: Erpingham on November 20, 2020, 05:22:32 PM
I've found the US Cavalry manual I refered to earlier Poinsett's Cavalry Tactics (https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/002613185), originally published 1841.
The section on wheeling starts on page 146 (154 on the slide bar of the scanned copy). It explains how to do fixed and moving pivot wheels.
One point of similarity to the British manual quoted earlier
In every kind of wheel, the troopers should cease wheeling and retake the direct march at the command FORWARD, at whatever point of the wheel they may be :
As said, we do need to be careful about how we apply these later manuals to earlier periods but the idea that wheels of less than 90 degrees are never described doesn't fit the evidence.
Wheeling is done by platoons - 24 men according to the manual - which seems to imply that larger units didn't wheel and could change orientation only in column, albeit there is a drill for advancing a line obliquely at a 45° angle.
And a turma is 30 men.
Which is 3 ranks of ten. Look at how slow that is on the video.
If you are expecting to find evidence of 500 men by 8 men on horses wheeling, ever. Forget it.
Quote from: Mark G on November 22, 2020, 08:21:24 AM
And a turma is 30 men.
Which is 3 ranks of ten. Look at how slow that is on the video.
If you are expecting to find evidence of 500 men by 8 men on horses wheeling, ever. Forget it.
So wheeling is more difficult for cavalry than for infantry, such that a body of horse will take longer to wheel than a body of foot of the same dimensions (and more men)?
Yes, undoubtedly. Because of the ranks, and because the horses on the inside have a much harder job turning in place than men do.
Remember, on a proper wheel, the second rank must wait for the first rank to not only make their turn, but also move forward before the second rank can itself move to the first line starting point to begin its wheel, etc for each rank.
And given that spatial logic and the need to anticipate the rear ranks to follow and the possible threat of an enemy, the logical place for that first line to stop and the second line to start is when the first rank has wheeled and moved forward to the full depth of the formation before the second rank moves forward to begin.
You can try this yourself with figures- take a 3x3 element of cavalry
Mark the footprint and especially the front corner.
Now wheel the front elements on a corner. You can't follow with the second rank until the first then moved forward as half the rear is still occupying some of the space ( the base effectively reminds you how long a horse is) - and you can see the nonsense of the whole formation following the front line of the front element.
So you move the front rank forward and it may as well go forward the full 3 deep. Second rank now moves to the first start, wheels and forward, then third.
Finally, the formation as a whole is now ready to advance to the new direction as a formation.
You can speed that up by changing from a full wheel on a pivot, to an open wheel that keeps moving, that's the archway turn, but it requires at least the frontage length again distance before the turn can complete. Worse if it's done at speed.
And the whole time in a battle you risk an opponent attacking while this complicated movement is incomplete and your fighting ability is greatly reduced.
Don't forget the depth of a horse vs a man.
People are basically a circle (or square or triangle) from above.
They can basically turn on their centre point ( the head).
You just put your left foot behind and slightly to the opposite side of your right foot and twist, and you have a 90 degree turn.
Horses are basically oval (or rectangular or wedges) they cannot pivot on their centre point. So turning in place is much much harder. That has implications for all forms of wheeling
Quote from: Mark G on November 22, 2020, 09:20:48 AM
Yes, undoubtedly. Because of the ranks, and because the horses on the inside have a much harder job turning in place than men do.
Remember, on a proper wheel, the second rank must wait for the first rank to not only make their turn, but also move forward before the second rank can itself move to the first line starting point to begin its wheel, etc for each rank.
And given that spatial logic and the need to anticipate the rear ranks to follow and the possible threat of an enemy, the logical place for that first line to stop and the second line to start is when the first rank has wheeled and moved forward to the full depth of the formation before the second rank moves forward to begin.
You can try this yourself with figures- take a 3x3 element of cavalry
Mark the footprint and especially the front corner.
Now wheel the front elements on a corner. You can't follow with the second rank until the first then moved forward as half the rear is still occupying some of the space ( the base effectively reminds you how long a horse is) - and you can see the nonsense of the whole formation following the front line of the front element.
So you move the front rank forward and it may as well go forward the full 3 deep. Second rank now moves to the first start, wheels and forward, then third.
Finally, the formation as a whole is now ready to advance to the new direction as a formation.
You can speed that up by changing from a full wheel on a pivot, to an open wheel that keeps moving, that's the archway turn, but it requires at least the frontage length again distance before the turn can complete. Worse if it's done at speed.
And the whole time in a battle you risk an opponent attacking while this complicated movement is incomplete and your fighting ability is greatly reduced.
Do you see this kind of thing working: front rank wheels in a tidy line and the rear ranks just follow, ranks breaking up but the files remaining intact. When the front rank has completed the wheel and advances, the whole formation naturally reverts to its tide rectangular shape.
(https://i.imgur.com/XVUpMnM.png)
QuoteWheeling is done by platoons - 24 men according to the manual - which seems to imply that larger units didn't wheel
larger formations wheeled by platoons/troops. I'm sure we've shared diagrams of this in the past, last time we discussed the subject.
I can't see any kind of second rank in that diagram, just a bunch of squashed horses
What you are trying there is to take an archway wheel and squash it into a hinge .
It's something you try quite often- making a picture and then suit is evidence.
Try taking to back to the start position and stepping it through a half horse at a time
QuoteDo you see this kind of thing working: front rank wheels in a tidy line and the rear ranks just follow, ranks breaking up but the files remaining intact.
I'm not sure real cavalry would turn like this unless following a hairpin road. Try widening the turning circle, placing the pivot point much further to the left. You would mess up your formation less and look less like a queue.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on November 22, 2020, 05:46:20 AM
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 22, 2020, 05:33:23 AM
I think you have to define by 'manoeuvrable' as well
Cavalry sent round the back of the army to deal with something on the other wing were probably very manoeuvrable, in that formations would probably loosen out during the movement and then close up as they arrived at their destination facing the right direction.
If you regard file leaders and file closers as NCOs there are an awful lot of men in a cavalry unit to shout men back into formation and get stuff tightened up. Everybody knows who they're behind and who they're next to
My take is that for something like moving round the back of an enemy line to get to the other flank the cavalry would form column, and columns could wheel as they pleased since the column leader would have no problem letting the few horsemen in the front rank know exactly where he wanted to go, with every one else just following suit. But columns aren't fighting formations so this could be done only if there was no danger of being charged whilst en route.
I suspect it would depend on terrain. Why form up in column of squadrons (or whatever your smallest unit is called) when you can just have them advance abreast because there's so much open ground?
If you have a turma of 30 men, with three decuriones it's either three files of ten or perhaps six files of five.
So assume the former. Why have your turmae following each other where there's plenty of room. Have them travel abreast, perhaps with as much distance between units as the unit takes up, and you can cover the ground easily. (Remember the huge Persian columns of Xerxes spreading out over many miles of frontage ;) )
All you have to do is give an order to close up and you're in a reasonable approximation of battle formation. Certainly you'll be in better order than the troops who're still fighting on the wing you're joining
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 22, 2020, 01:02:11 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on November 22, 2020, 05:46:20 AM
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 22, 2020, 05:33:23 AM
I think you have to define by 'manoeuvrable' as well
Cavalry sent round the back of the army to deal with something on the other wing were probably very manoeuvrable, in that formations would probably loosen out during the movement and then close up as they arrived at their destination facing the right direction.
If you regard file leaders and file closers as NCOs there are an awful lot of men in a cavalry unit to shout men back into formation and get stuff tightened up. Everybody knows who they're behind and who they're next to
My take is that for something like moving round the back of an enemy line to get to the other flank the cavalry would form column, and columns could wheel as they pleased since the column leader would have no problem letting the few horsemen in the front rank know exactly where he wanted to go, with every one else just following suit. But columns aren't fighting formations so this could be done only if there was no danger of being charged whilst en route.
I suspect it would depend on terrain. Why form up in column of squadrons (or whatever your smallest unit is called) when you can just have them advance abreast because there's so much open ground?
If you have a turma of 30 men, with three decuriones it's either three files of ten or perhaps six files of five.
So assume the former. Why have your turmae following each other where there's plenty of room. Have them travel abreast, perhaps with as much distance between units as the unit takes up, and you can cover the ground easily. (Remember the huge Persian columns of Xerxes spreading out over many miles of frontage ;) )
All you have to do is give an order to close up and you're in a reasonable approximation of battle formation. Certainly you'll be in better order than the troops who're still fighting on the wing you're joining
The problem with this is the assumption that a long line of cavalry (often easily as long as the infantry battleline) could wheel whilst maintaining cohesion. Is there any evidence cavalry could do that? The huge Persian columns certainly weren't battlefield manoeuvre formations. (:-O
Quote from: Mark G on November 22, 2020, 10:44:28 AM
What you are trying there is to take an archway wheel and squash it into a hinge .
It's something you try quite often- making a picture and then suit is evidence.
Try taking to back to the start position and stepping it through a half horse at a time
It was just a question really:
could a squadron wheel like this, the front rank keeping order, the other ranks going to heck whilst the files remain intact, and everything coming back together after the wheel was completed? It would certainly speed up the process.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on November 22, 2020, 03:11:27 PM
The problem with this is the assumption that a long line of cavalry (often easily as long as the infantry battleline) could wheel whilst maintaining cohesion. Is there any evidence cavalry could do that? The huge Persian columns certainly weren't battlefield manoeuvre formations. (:-O
I'm not sure a long line of cavalry would ever attempt it. After all let's assume you have a cavalry wing you want to wheel. As general you send a messenger to the commander of the wing (or he spots the need and orders it himself.)
He'll pass it down to unit commanders. In a Roman army, the Ala. But that is unlikely to be one long line. It'll be a line of subunits each of which is virtually a column. I would have assumed the subunits as columns would just wheel as they moved forward, just as if they were following a road or track. It's something easily practiced
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 22, 2020, 03:34:13 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on November 22, 2020, 03:11:27 PM
The problem with this is the assumption that a long line of cavalry (often easily as long as the infantry battleline) could wheel whilst maintaining cohesion. Is there any evidence cavalry could do that? The huge Persian columns certainly weren't battlefield manoeuvre formations. (:-O
I'm not sure a long line of cavalry would ever attempt it. After all let's assume you have a cavalry wing you want to wheel. As general you send a messenger to the commander of the wing (or he spots the need and orders it himself.)
He'll pass it down to unit commanders. In a Roman army, the Ala. But that is unlikely to be one long line. It'll be a line of subunits each of which is virtually a column. I would have assumed the subunits as columns would just wheel as they moved forward, just as if they were following a road or track. It's something easily practiced
How exactly does that work? If a line of subunits wheel as they move forward then they have formed a column. Or do you mean the subunits echelon forwards, wheel, and now, in a line echeloned back and facing right or left, move up the subunits to form a straight line again?
Quote from: Justin Swanton on November 22, 2020, 04:05:02 PM
How exactly does that work? If a line of subunits wheel as they move forward then they have formed a column. Or do you mean the subunits echelon forwards, wheel, and now, in a line echeloned back and facing right or left, move up the subunits to form a straight line again?
Certainly with the Roman cavalry the sub units may well have been columns. Even if five ranks deep they'd still only be six ranks wide. So that sort of unit would have no real difficulty wheeling, they'd have plenty of time to practice.
Then if marching along the road in 'columns of 3' they'd automatically 'wheel' at every bend. So it's not something they'd need to practice, it would be instinctive.
So I'd see the line as a group of subunits standing next to each other , the unit commander shouts wheel. Somebody from the unit will go and stand as a marker so they know where the new line is to form and each sub unit moves forward and then turns into line. I cannot see why anybody should 'wheel'
I see the process as being very different from infantry. After all we think of infantry as forming lines, probably conditioned with seeing Napoleonic infantry battalions three men deep.
Even a cohort would have the centuries with eighty men, eight and ten frontage. All you need to wheel a cohort is somebody to mark the far end of the new line, then each century can send an optio forward to mark their end position, and they just advance, turning a bit as they do because you just have to follow the file leader and he just has to keep an eye on the man 'outside' him and the man at the end stops when he reaches the optio
On a ten man frontage and men reasonably spaced it isn't too difficult. The next century just moves forward and swings into place. I cannot see a 'line' wheeling because the 'line' isn't a unit. It's a collection of units
If you really want to understand how sub units move, look at 18th C and napoleonic evidence for the broken down diagrams.
But keep in mind. These are ancient armies you are really interested in, and they agree battle and form up opposing each other in almost all cases.
Quote from: Mark G on November 22, 2020, 05:25:25 PM
If you really want to understand how sub units move, look at 18th C and napoleonic evidence for the broken down diagrams.
But keep in mind. These are ancient armies you are really interested in, and they agree battle and form up opposing each other in almost all cases.
But did, for example, Napoleonic cavalry manoeuvre in line or in files? Certainly infantry were far more linier than Ancient infantry
Missed the point Jim.
Justin is not clear on how a unit would manoeuvre by sub units.
The best way to get a grip on that is to look at those well documented methods from the modern era, of which there are many good and clear examples.
Once he gets that, then he take take the concept back in time and apply it.
He's not going to find a one to one mapping, but he will find it easier to conceive what might be happening with more conceptual models to draw from.
Quote from: Mark G on November 22, 2020, 07:07:13 PM
Missed the point Jim.
Justin is not clear on how a unit would manoeuvre by sub units.
The best way to get a grip on that is to look at those well documented methods from the modern era, of which there are many good and clear examples.
Once he gets that, then he take take the concept back in time and apply it.
He's not going to find a one to one mapping, but he will find it easier to conceive what might be happening with more conceptual models to draw from.
A good idea. Let me do that.
Whilst I'm mugging up on the cavalry manuals I thought of the comparison by the tacticians between a rhombus and a wedge. The tacticians praise the rhombus because it can change direction quickly - obviously by the individual horsemen turning in place - and hence cannot be charged in the flank and rear. They praise the wedge because it can countermarch more easily than the square:
| It is said that the Scythians and Thracians invented the wedge formation, and that later the Macedonians used it, since they considered it more practical than the square formation; for the front of the wedge formation is narrow, as in the rhomboid, and only one half as wide, and this made it easiest for them to break through, as well as brought the leaders in front of the rest, while wheeling [ἀναστροφή - turn back, return, wheel round] was thus easier than in the square formation, since all have their eyes fixed on the single squadron-commander, as is the case also in the flight of cranes. - Asklepiodotus: 7.3
The [formation, i.e. wedge] is gathered into a sharp [point], but at the very outset slightly turning around, provides an entire easily unrolled formation. - Arrian: 16 |
The translation of Arrian is bad and I don't have the Greek in front of me right now. What he seems to be saying, which confirms Asklepiodotus, is that the wedge is very suitable for countermarching, with the lead horse turning 180 degrees and retiring down between the files, followed by the other horses in turn. The wedge is good for that since the leader at the point of the wedge necessarily turns first, giving the other riders time to take their cue from him and turn themselves. In a square the leader would turn before the other riders were aware of it, delaying their following his example in time and disrupting the formation.
Question: why isn't the rhombus just as good at this as the wedge? The answer seems to be that the rhombus wasn't really designed for countermarching. My own take is that since there were four leaders at each corner, the overall commander of the rhombus was obliged to use signals, most likely sound signals, to indicate to the other leaders that it was time to turn right or left. Signals necessarily mean a limited repertoire of manoeuvres (unless the trumpeter used morse code) and countermarching probably wasn't part of them, nor was it necessary since the rhombus could change direction in 90 degree increments so quickly.
I confess to never having seen a flight of cranes but I've rather thought of them like a flight of geese or swans - sort of triangular with a leader at the point, changing directions in smooth motions as they flight adjusts to the lead bird. I've never seen a flight of geese or swans countermarch, with the leader making a sharp 180 degree turn and the others turning back to follow. While it may be that cranes are very different, I suspect not. So why use this metaphor to describe countermarching? I await enlightenment from those with better ornithological, linguistic and cultural knowledge.
Ah, things take a more fruitful turn, perhaps. Wikipedia informs me that there are two species of crane in Greece (limiting things arbitrarily to Greece, though the Scythian or Thracian origin of the wedge might suggest other species of Asian or European cranes as possible models - but for these purposes we are perhaps justified in thinking that formations are not so very different between species). So the possible Greek cranes are:
Common crane, Grus grus
Demoiselle crane, Anthropoides virgo
Now I can find nothing species-specific on the flight formation, so we will again have to assume that formation and flight dynamics are similar across crane species. The classic crane flight formation is of course the 'V', as illustrated here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_formation#/media/File:Eurasian_Cranes_migrating_to_Meyghan_Salt_Lake.jpg
Note these are 'Eurasian cranes', which is the common crane, Grus grus. Note also that the cranes do not in fact fly in wedge formation, so we must convict Asclepiodotus, or perhaps his Thracian or Scythian sources, of some imprecision here, if the crane formation is indeed the inspiration of that used by cavalry. Note also that despite Asclepiodotus' apparent assertion, cranes do not have a 'leader', but rotate the leadership role btween members of the flock, a collegiate form of command comparable perhaps to that in use in Athens in the early fifth century (see Herodotus' account of Marathon). The next possibly disappointing finding is that there is little if anything in the literature about the manoeuvre capabilities of a 'V' of cranes, and in fact the orthodox view is that maneouvrability is not a significant factor in the adoption by cranes of this formation at all; rather, flight endurance appears to be the major advantage of the formation, as each individual is able to fly in the upwash wingtip vortices of the next bird ahead, thus reducing drag and so energy use, and increasing flight range (by 71 percent according to some estimates). It is not clear whether or how this benefit would apply to cavalry at all, since upwash, drag and lift are not a factor for horses (which maintain, as has been famously demonstrated, at least one point of contact with the ground at all times, and which therefore support their own weight through their legs).
It would appear then that the similarities between cavalry formations and crane formations have been greatly overstated, and the relevance of the one to the other may not be very great. It may indeed be that the similarity between the two was more aesthetic than practical, the 'V' shape of the crane formation reminding observers of the wedge of cavalry even though the dynamics of the two formations are very different. However, while there is little in the literature concerning flight manoeuvres, common sense suggests that manoeuvres by cranes in 'V' formation must in fact have been possible. This is at least strongly suggested by the long range migratory flights undertaken by these birds - with no ability to manoeuvre in flight, the cranes would have been required to take off and maintain flight on precisely the correct heading to reach their destination, which could have been many miles away and certainly below the local horizon - this does not seem plausible. So if we grant at least a limited manoeuvre capability to the 'V' of cranes, and we allow that there is at least a functional resemblance between the role of the current flight leader (crane) and the officer in command of a cavalry formation (ilarch), then it may not be too fanciful to suppose that Asclepiodotus (or his sources) could have had in mind the ability of the crane 'leader' to make small course corrections (such as would be required in migratory flight, for example) with the other birds in the flight following this bird's lead (very literally), and there may well be a similarity between such course corrections and the ability of the cavalry leader to make small course corrections such as might be required on the battlefield, while being followed by the rest of the cavalry formation. As such, the crane/cavalry comparison, though not accurate in all details and possibly responsible for serious misconceptions in some cases, may in fact have some basis in practical battlefield reality. Further research on this question is however required, and in particular a review of the literature concerning the formation of birds other than cranes would undoubtedly reveal useful comparative material.
Thank you Richard. So cranes do essentially use a similar technique to swans and geese and observations of the same may inform matters for those of us in crane-deprived areas of the world.
I am going out on a limb here and going to suggest that the flight characteristics of cranes were not the key thing - I doubt if there was sufficient understanding of aeorodynamics or the advantages of the V formation for long distance flight in the Hellenstic era. I suspect it is the leadership model that is being observed (without possibly understanding this is not hierarchical but communal effort sharing). But it still remains unclear why a countermarch would be described in these terms, because their moves are about graceful, gradual even, course changes not sharp reverses or turns.
Quote from: Erpingham on November 24, 2020, 03:21:05 PM
Thank you Richard. So cranes do essentially use a similar technique to swans and geese and observations of the same may inform matters for those of us in crane-deprived areas of the world.
I am going out on a limb here and going to suggest that the flight characteristics of cranes were not the key thing - I doubt if there was sufficient understanding of aeorodynamics or the advantages of the V formation for long distance flight in the Hellenstic era. I suspect it is the leadership model that is being observed (without possibly understanding this is not hierarchical but communal effort sharing). But it still remains unclear why a countermarch would be described in these terms, because their moves are about graceful, gradual even, course changes not sharp reverses or turns.
I'll get back later with the Greek (if I have the time or energy - I am doing evening overtime during weekdays and more overtime on the weekend and I tend to be clapped out after work). The crucial terms will be the word translated by "unrolled" in Arrian and the term commonly translated as "wheel" in Asklepiodotus - ἀναστροφή - which actually means to turn back, return, wheel round, in other words execute a 180 degree change of direction. "unrolled" I think actually means "countermarched", having seen how this term is used by Arrian to describe the manoeuvres of Roman cavalry. Stay tuned.
PS: I don't think Asklepiodotus means more by the image of cranes than the fact that the frontmost crane leads the rest who form up on him. Nothing about how cranes manoeuvre (as Richard pointed out they don't manoeuvre, just keep going in a more-or-less straight line).
If you are busy, Justin, allow me:
ταῖς δὲ δὴ ἐμβολοειδέσι τάξεσι Σκύθας κεχρῆσθαι μάλιστα ἀκούομεν, καὶ Θρᾷκας, ἀπὸ Σκυθῶν μαθόντας. Φίλιππος δὲ ὁ Μακεδὼν καὶ Μακεδόνας ταύτῃ τῇ τάξει χρῆσθαι ἐπήσκησεν. ὠφέλιμος δὲ καὶ αὕτη δοκεῖ ἡ τάξις, ὅτι ἐν κύκλῳ οἱ ἡγεμόνες τεταγμένοι εἰσί, καὶ τὸ μέτωπον ἐς ὀξὺ ἀπολῆγον εὐπετῶς πᾶσαν τάξιν πολεμίαν διακόπτειν παρέχει, καὶ τὰς ἐπιστροφάς τε καὶ ἀναστροφὰς ὀξείας ποιεῖσθαι δίδωσιν.
DeVoto's tanslation is a shambles. He uses 'unfold' for 'countermarch' (exelisso) - see eg Arrian 23. I don't know if his 'unroll' here is meant to convey the same thing - if so it's not justified by Arrian's Greek. Attempted rough translation of above (based largely on Asclepiodotus as they are very close):
"It is said that the Scythians invented the wedge formation, and the Thracians learned it from them. Philip of Macedon also taught the Macedonians to use it. The formation is useful as the leaders are drawn up around it, and the front being narrow is able to cut through all enemy formations [uh oh], and epistrophes and anastrophes can be made easily". Something like that.
So what are epistrophes and anastrophes? Asclepiodotus 10.4 is your friend: "It is an epistrophe when we close up the entire battalion... [blah blah you know this bit] and move it like the body of one man in such a manner that the entire force swings on the first file leader as on a pivot".
So 'epistrophe' is a quarter turn by wheeling (yes, through 90 degrees). At least it is for infantry. Cavalry probabaly the same? And assuming Greeks were careful with their use of technical vocabulary (which usually they weren't).
For anastrophe, see Asclepiodotus 10.6: "Anastrophe is the reversal of the epistrophe to the position the syntagma originally held".
OK there's a surprise since mostly we might imagine 'anastrophe' to be an 'about turn' or 'about wheel' (through 180 degrees); here Asclepiodotus calls such a 180 wheel 'Perispasmos'(10.7).
So according to Asclepiodotus, epistrophe is 'a wheel through 90 degrees' and anastrophe is 'a wheel through 90 degrees back again having once done the first wheel through 90 degrees'. The difference, we might imagine, is that such a 'reverse wheel' would involve first an about face (Asclepiodotus doesn't mention this) so that the formation can wheel back without having to walk backwards.
I don't know whether that's what you want to hear or not. Certainly, neither Arrian nor Asclepiodotus are talking about countermarching here, and the 'flight of cranes' thing is definitely in the context of wheels, not countermarches.
Now more importantly and interestingly we need some research on the incidence of wheels in flights of cranes, and the limits on the angles through which they are able to wheel.
And edited to add - inspired by Anthony's bold speculations on Hellenistic knowledge of crane aerodynamics, I'm going to suggest that neither Asclep's "and the anastrophe was easier than in the square" nor Arrian's "epistrophes and anastrophes can be made easily" have in mind the technical meanings for epistrophe and anastrophe of Asclep. 10.6-7 - they just mean "wheeling manoeuvres are easy", which is the point, dare I suggest, of the analogy with the cranes, for whom wheeling manoeuvres are also easy. There, I've said it.
QuoteNow more importantly and interestingly we need some research on the incidence of wheels in flights of cranes, and the limits on the angles through which they are able to wheel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7N_dF64oRA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7N_dF64oRA)
What is interesting in that video, is that none of the birds turn in place, they all describe circles in the air.
Seems obvious, but necessary to point out I think
Quote from: Erpingham on November 24, 2020, 05:33:08 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7N_dF64oRA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7N_dF64oRA)
Excellent! Asclepiodotus doesn't have a word for 360 degree wheels ('circling'). Consecutive perispasmoi, perhaps. Multiple consecutive perispasmoi of cranes. Though their formation is all over the place - their leader is going to get a dressing down.
Quote from: Mark G on November 24, 2020, 05:57:01 PM
What is interesting in that video, is that none of the birds turn in place, they all describe circles in the air.
Seems obvious, but necessary to point out I think
Yes, they don't pivot on a hovering "wing man" but round an external pivot. It is , as you say, rather obvious for a creature in constant motion.
I suspect we are supposed to read very simple obvious lessons from the crane metaphor. The follow the leader style, the dynamic flow, the sweeping rather than abrupt turn. If this style originated on the steppes, where there is ample open space, it would make sense. This would then contrast with a more rigid rectilinear style, with a more stilted way of manoeuvering. Maybe.
Quote from: RichT on November 24, 2020, 05:02:45 PM
If you are busy, Justin, allow me:
ταῖς δὲ δὴ ἐμβολοειδέσι τάξεσι Σκύθας κεχρῆσθαι μάλιστα ἀκούομεν, καὶ Θρᾷκας, ἀπὸ Σκυθῶν μαθόντας. Φίλιππος δὲ ὁ Μακεδὼν καὶ Μακεδόνας ταύτῃ τῇ τάξει χρῆσθαι ἐπήσκησεν. ὠφέλιμος δὲ καὶ αὕτη δοκεῖ ἡ τάξις, ὅτι ἐν κύκλῳ οἱ ἡγεμόνες τεταγμένοι εἰσί, καὶ τὸ μέτωπον ἐς ὀξὺ ἀπολῆγον εὐπετῶς πᾶσαν τάξιν πολεμίαν διακόπτειν παρέχει, καὶ τὰς ἐπιστροφάς τε καὶ ἀναστροφὰς ὀξείας ποιεῖσθαι δίδωσιν.
DeVoto's tanslation is a shambles. He uses 'unfold' for 'countermarch' (exelisso) - see eg Arrian 23. I don't know if his 'unroll' here is meant to convey the same thing - if so it's not justified by Arrian's Greek. Attempted rough translation of above (based largely on Asclepiodotus as they are very close):
"It is said that the Scythians invented the wedge formation, and the Thracians learned it from them. Philip of Macedon also taught the Macedonians to use it. The formation is useful as the leaders are drawn up around it, and the front being narrow is able to cut through all enemy formations [uh oh], and epistrophes and anastrophes can be made easily". Something like that.
So what are epistrophes and anastrophes? Asclepiodotus 10.4 is your friend: "It is an epistrophe when we close up the entire battalion... [blah blah you know this bit] and move it like the body of one man in such a manner that the entire force swings on the first file leader as on a pivot".
So 'epistrophe' is a quarter turn by wheeling (yes, through 90 degrees). At least it is for infantry. Cavalry probabaly the same? And assuming Greeks were careful with their use of technical vocabulary (which usually they weren't).
For anastrophe, see Asclepiodotus 10.6: "Anastrophe is the reversal of the epistrophe to the position the syntagma originally held".
OK there's a surprise since mostly we might imagine 'anastrophe' to be an 'about turn' or 'about wheel' (through 180 degrees); here Asclepiodotus calls such a 180 wheel 'Perispasmos'(10.7).
So according to Asclepiodotus, epistrophe is 'a wheel through 90 degrees' and anastrophe is 'a wheel through 90 degrees back again having once done the first wheel through 90 degrees'. The difference, we might imagine, is that such a 'reverse wheel' would involve first an about face (Asclepiodotus doesn't mention this) so that the formation can wheel back without having to walk backwards.
I don't know whether that's what you want to hear or not. Certainly, neither Arrian nor Asclepiodotus are talking about countermarching here, and the 'flight of cranes' thing is definitely in the context of wheels, not countermarches.
Now more importantly and interestingly we need some research on the incidence of wheels in flights of cranes, and the limits on the angles through which they are able to wheel.
And edited to add - inspired by Anthony's bold speculations on Hellenistic knowledge of crane aerodynamics, I'm going to suggest that neither Asclep's "and the anastrophe was easier than in the square" nor Arrian's "epistrophes and anastrophes can be made easily" have in mind the technical meanings for epistrophe and anastrophe of Asclep. 10.6-7 - they just mean "wheeling manoeuvres are easy", which is the point, dare I suggest, of the analogy with the cranes, for whom wheeling manoeuvres are also easy. There, I've said it.
Fair enough. Wheeling obviously is going to be easier for a wedge since everybody has no trouble playing follow-my-leader. I would think though that in the context of a military manual 'anastrophe' and 'epistrophe' will retain their precise meanings, which means that Arrian is talking about 90 degree wheels.
So to sum up:
1. The rhombus is the most agile formation since it can change direction instantly in 90 degree increments without needing to wheel (the horsemen turn individually in place). It is however the weakest formation in attack since its best horsemen are spread on all 4 sides and the wedge shape does not deliver an effective shock impact. It is also not the best for "piercing all enemy formations". It necessarily changes direction in 90 degree increments.
2. the wedge is less manoevrable than the rhombus but more manoeuvrable than the square, since it can easily wheel. It is especially good for piercing enemy formations. Why? See everything on KTB. One point is that the best riders are concentrated on the two front edges of the wedge. Taking Arrian's terms in the same sense as Asklepiodotus, it wheels in 90 degree increments only.
3. The square is the least manoeuvrable formation since it wheels with difficulty (Mark's take on the cavalry wheel might apply here). But it delivers the best frontal impact since all riders hit the enemy simultaneously, and the best riders are on the front edge only. Presuming the cavalry square wheels like the infantry square (which Asklepiodotus implies) it also wheels in 90 degree increments.
Implications for wargamers:
1. The rhombus can change direction, left, right and back, instantly without any movement penalties, but it suffers a -1 in combat.
2. The wedge requires some movement penalty when wheeling right or left (it cannot turn 180 degrees in place). It fights with normal combat factors. It can pass straight through at least some enemy formations (what does 'pasan' mean? Discuss.).
3. The square requires more movement penalties when wheeling right or left, say something like all its movement allowance is spent on a wheel. It can't turn to face backwards. It has a +1 in combat.
4. All changes of direction are in 90 degree increments. Wargamers must henceforth use square grids. Don't argue.
How does that sound?
PS: This thread is going well. I think we're all learning something. :)
Quote from: Justin Swanton on November 25, 2020, 11:43:30 AM
4. All changes of direction are in 90 degree increments.
Thus explaining the tacticaal superiority of steppe nomad cavalry, who hadn't read the manuals so could wheel wherever they felt so inclined.
Quote from: Duncan Head on November 25, 2020, 12:03:26 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on November 25, 2020, 11:43:30 AM
4. All changes of direction are in 90 degree increments.
Thus explaining the tacticaal superiority of steppe nomad cavalry, who hadn't read the manuals so could wheel wherever they felt so inclined.
Historical research advances!
Quote from: Justin Swanton on November 25, 2020, 11:43:30 AM
How does that sound?
Terrible! Though it would take a while to say in what ways.
Quote
PS: This thread is going well. I think we're all learning something. :)
I've certainly learned a lot about cranes.
QuoteTaking Arrian's terms in the same sense as Asklepiodotus, it wheels in 90 degree increments only.
I suggest contacting David Attenborough. He's so well respected in the animal kingdom that the cranes will accept it from him they've been doing it wrong all these years.