- Welcome to SoA Forums.
Recent posts
#1
Army Research / Re: Too many Triarii?
Last post by Adrian Nayler - July 26, 2024, 10:49:44 PMQuote from: stevenneate on July 26, 2024, 02:42:42 PMWas there a morale advantage to the Principes & Hastati knowing these elite "heroes" had our backs?
I think I recall attending a talk by Marian Helm (possibly at King's College London in 2019 or online in 2023) where he spoke about "Creating 'natural fighters': Age and social expectations in the Roman republican army." I don't think his ideas have yet made it into print.
If I remember correctly, one of his arguments was that the triarii, as established married heads of families, had an important social function within the army. The younger legionaries, the bulk of the fighting men, operated under the watchful (and watching) eyes of their social superiors who were in a position to assess, judge, and validate their performance both within the army and to their families back home. With such peer pressure the younger men were likely thereby encouraged to greater acts of virtus and thus the overall fighting ability and moral resilience of the army were enhanced.
Adrian.
#2
Ancient and Medieval History / Ely castle found
Last post by Imperial Dave - July 26, 2024, 06:58:45 PM #3
Ancient and Medieval History / Cardiff dig reveals oldest hou...
Last post by Imperial Dave - July 26, 2024, 06:55:41 PM #4
Battle Reports / Re: A contested river crossing
Last post by Imperial Dave - July 26, 2024, 06:51:26 PMNice report
#5
Ancient and Medieval History / Stone age climate resilient vi...
Last post by Imperial Dave - July 26, 2024, 06:50:22 PM #6
Battle Reports / A contested river crossing
Last post by Erpingham - July 26, 2024, 06:26:09 PMI've been turning over in my mind a very typical medieval tactical problem and what games may be had with it. That issue is the defended river crossing. Rivers provided excellent choke points on strategic routes. Even if a river was tactically fordable, getting the baggage and artillery across needed a sound crossing - a good ford or bridge. Seize the bridge and you delay the enemy advance, divert it or stop it altogether.
The standard medieval attack doctrine was to seek out an alternative crossing to launch a flanking assault while pinning the bridge defenders with a direct assault. A popular defending tactic was to draw up back from the river (beyond bowshot) then, when the attacker moves across the bridge, attack when his force is divided, though a straight holding of bridge and ford was also popular.
So, that's the historical background. My other inspiration was the adventures of Jacques de Lalaing in the Ghent War. His war consisted largely of reconnaisance and probing attacks against villages and river and drainage crossings, to clear a route for the main army's advance.
To test the game, I therefore chose small forces of Burgundians and Flemish. It could have been in the Ghent War, but my army is a bit earlier.
The next thing was the terrain. Very simple. A river across the board, a bridge in the middle, a road top to bottom and a a second side to side, with a crossroads just behind the bridge on the defenders side. No second ford was modelled - any ford party would be a flank march on the side-to-side road.
Next design element - the forces were not balanced. The attacker has what should be a decisively superior force. But the mass of the force couldn't be brought to bear, at least initially, because the river was impassable except at the bridge and the off table ford.
Taking the ford next, this is a bit tricky for me in a solo game. I know it exists and so can plan attack and defence accordingly. In order to make life less certain, insert uncertainty as to when any flank force can arrive but also randomise which end of the road. The defender shouldn't have sufficient force to cover all three potential attack routes effectively.
We've noted that the attacker should have overwhelming force. So, really, the defender needs some time delay victory conditions. So, we might say after a certain number of moves, the gallant defenders are heavily reinforced and the attacker must retire. Or the defenders may be covering the retreat of their main force and after a certain number of moves, they have safely escaped. Doesn't really matter, provided there is a time limit. What that is will depend on typical number of game turns under your rules.
So, how did the test go? The Burgundian force, as befits an advance guard, were all mounted but dismounted to assault the bridge. A mixed force of men-at-arms crossbowmen and archers tackled the bridge, the fording detachment consisted of mounted men-at-arms and gros varlets. The Flemish formed a big pikeblock behind the bridge with a flank detachment of crossbows. The bridge assault party seized the bridge but the Flemings gave them no room to deploy and they were roughly handled. Their commander went down in the fight and his household were broken. The crossbows and the rightmost unit longbows were engaged in a shoot out, which the longbows lost. On the other flank, the Burgundian crossbows broke one of the pike units. At this point, I cheated and brought on the ford party. If I hadn't, it would have been touch and go for the bridge assault. I did use a random selection of sides though and the forders turned up behind the Flemish crossbows. Suddenly the tables were turned. The leading men-at-arms scattered a crossbow unit and pursued into the flank of the nearest pike unit. This didn't break immediately and managed to turn to face but was then hit in the flank by a unit of varlets and it and the Flemish leader were lost. Morale tests followed and the remaining pikes and crossbows beat a hasty retreat.
Learning points. This is actually hard on the bridge assault if the enemy can face up a well-supported good infantry. Hang back and counter charge, rather than holding the bridge on a one-against-one, was successful - the Burgundians were restricted but the Flemish could rely on support. The flank attack is potentially devastating when it arrives if the defenders have no reserves, especially mobile ones like cavalry.
One last photo, to go with the earlier one in last game. Just to prove there was a bridge
The standard medieval attack doctrine was to seek out an alternative crossing to launch a flanking assault while pinning the bridge defenders with a direct assault. A popular defending tactic was to draw up back from the river (beyond bowshot) then, when the attacker moves across the bridge, attack when his force is divided, though a straight holding of bridge and ford was also popular.
So, that's the historical background. My other inspiration was the adventures of Jacques de Lalaing in the Ghent War. His war consisted largely of reconnaisance and probing attacks against villages and river and drainage crossings, to clear a route for the main army's advance.
To test the game, I therefore chose small forces of Burgundians and Flemish. It could have been in the Ghent War, but my army is a bit earlier.
The next thing was the terrain. Very simple. A river across the board, a bridge in the middle, a road top to bottom and a a second side to side, with a crossroads just behind the bridge on the defenders side. No second ford was modelled - any ford party would be a flank march on the side-to-side road.
Next design element - the forces were not balanced. The attacker has what should be a decisively superior force. But the mass of the force couldn't be brought to bear, at least initially, because the river was impassable except at the bridge and the off table ford.
Taking the ford next, this is a bit tricky for me in a solo game. I know it exists and so can plan attack and defence accordingly. In order to make life less certain, insert uncertainty as to when any flank force can arrive but also randomise which end of the road. The defender shouldn't have sufficient force to cover all three potential attack routes effectively.
We've noted that the attacker should have overwhelming force. So, really, the defender needs some time delay victory conditions. So, we might say after a certain number of moves, the gallant defenders are heavily reinforced and the attacker must retire. Or the defenders may be covering the retreat of their main force and after a certain number of moves, they have safely escaped. Doesn't really matter, provided there is a time limit. What that is will depend on typical number of game turns under your rules.
So, how did the test go? The Burgundian force, as befits an advance guard, were all mounted but dismounted to assault the bridge. A mixed force of men-at-arms crossbowmen and archers tackled the bridge, the fording detachment consisted of mounted men-at-arms and gros varlets. The Flemish formed a big pikeblock behind the bridge with a flank detachment of crossbows. The bridge assault party seized the bridge but the Flemings gave them no room to deploy and they were roughly handled. Their commander went down in the fight and his household were broken. The crossbows and the rightmost unit longbows were engaged in a shoot out, which the longbows lost. On the other flank, the Burgundian crossbows broke one of the pike units. At this point, I cheated and brought on the ford party. If I hadn't, it would have been touch and go for the bridge assault. I did use a random selection of sides though and the forders turned up behind the Flemish crossbows. Suddenly the tables were turned. The leading men-at-arms scattered a crossbow unit and pursued into the flank of the nearest pike unit. This didn't break immediately and managed to turn to face but was then hit in the flank by a unit of varlets and it and the Flemish leader were lost. Morale tests followed and the remaining pikes and crossbows beat a hasty retreat.
Learning points. This is actually hard on the bridge assault if the enemy can face up a well-supported good infantry. Hang back and counter charge, rather than holding the bridge on a one-against-one, was successful - the Burgundians were restricted but the Flemish could rely on support. The flank attack is potentially devastating when it arrives if the defenders have no reserves, especially mobile ones like cavalry.
One last photo, to go with the earlier one in last game. Just to prove there was a bridge
#7
Ancient and Medieval History / Pompeii discovery sheds light....
Last post by Imperial Dave - July 26, 2024, 06:00:56 PM #8
Army Research / Re: Too many Triarii?
Last post by dwkay57 - July 26, 2024, 05:49:25 PMI think Steve's middle paragraph is quite key. The most likely answer is that we probably don't know and how we replicate this on our model battlefields is down to the 4 A's (ambition, abstraction, authenticity, and aesthetics) of wargaming. The result is dependent upon where we are in our individual four-dimensional matrix of those factors.
#9
Army Research / Re: Hellenistic War Elephants ...
Last post by lionheartrjc - July 26, 2024, 05:17:28 PMThe Roman emperors appointed a procurator ad elephantos. I cannot find any reference to the story, but it sounds plausible.
Richard
Richard
#10
Army Research / Hellenistic War Elephants used...
Last post by Aetius-last-of-the-Romans - July 26, 2024, 04:15:43 PMAnother odd question for the forum members.
Somewhere at the back of my mind (maybe erroneously) I have it that there is a primary Hellenistic/Roman sources that mentions a prohibition on the use of 'war-elephants' for other (commercial) purposes.
I think a 'master of elephants' or 'keeper' or some such is being reprimanded or chastised for hiring out some of his elephants.
Does this ring any bells with anybody and if so, can you give me a reference source please?
Many thanks
Mark
Somewhere at the back of my mind (maybe erroneously) I have it that there is a primary Hellenistic/Roman sources that mentions a prohibition on the use of 'war-elephants' for other (commercial) purposes.
I think a 'master of elephants' or 'keeper' or some such is being reprimanded or chastised for hiring out some of his elephants.
Does this ring any bells with anybody and if so, can you give me a reference source please?
Many thanks
Mark