Strathclyde Army - Infantry question

[aligern]

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? 

[Patrick Waterson]

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):

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.

[Mark G]

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

[Imperial Dave]

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!

[Justin Taylor]

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.

[Erpingham]

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.

[aligern]

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

[Erpingham]

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.

[Imperial Dave]

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 

Of course it was easier when static, ie receiving a charge at the halt 

[Erpingham]

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.

[Imperial Dave]

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.

[Jim Webster]

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' :-)