A taxonomy of cavalry

[Jim Webster]

It really depends what you're trying to achieve. Tags like 'superior', 'fast', 'inferior' or whatever work better when restricted to  a tight time frame. Ideally when there is some direct contact between the troop types you're attempting to deal with.

So I'd suggest that for the 2nd Punic war Hannibal doesn't merely get Numidian light cavalry, he gets, at various times, regular and irregular Numidian light cavalry. At times some of them will count as superior, and doubtless in the varied fighting in Africa, some of them probably warrant being classed as inferior in comparison to their more professional opponents

[gavindbm]

To go right back to the start and how many types of cavalry must a rule set include to get the right effect....I will note that Lost Battles manages with  just 3 classes - light cavalry, heavy cavalry and cataphracts.

[Andreas Johansson]

To go right back to the start and how many types of cavalry must a rule set include to get the right effect....I will note that Lost Battles manages with  just 3 classes - light cavalry, heavy cavalry and cataphracts.

It does, however, only deal with the Classical world ca 500-1 BC, so doesn't need to worry about whether, say, cataphracts and medieval knights can be treated the same.

Still, we seem to have something like a consenus that (at least) three classes are needed, corresponding approximately to DBX's light horse, cavalry, and knights. (Then we can argue that DBX uses its classes inconsistently - LH (S) are noted to be willing to charge home, frex, so shouldn't they be cavalry then?) I note that accepting Asclepiodotus' scheme, fencers would go with the knights, not the cavalry, because he focuses on fighting exclusively hand-to-hand, not on shock tactics.

(I note also that the annotator in my Loeb of Asclepiodotus says there's no evidence of a threefold division of the cavalry in practice, suggesting that our author is guilty of rhetorical invention.)

[Patrick Waterson]

To go right back to the start and how many types of cavalry must a rule set include to get the right effect....I will note that Lost Battles manages with  just 3 classes - light cavalry, heavy cavalry and cataphracts.

It does, however, only deal with the Classical world ca 500-1 BC, so doesn't need to worry about whether, say, cataphracts and medieval knights can be treated the same.

And Lost Battles is a fairly abstract system.  Were it to be refitted for the Middle Ages, it would doubtless have Knights, Heavy Cavalry and Light Cavalry.

Still, we seem to have something like a consensus that (at least) three classes are needed, corresponding approximately to DBX's light horse, cavalry, and knights. (Then we can argue that DBX uses its classes inconsistently - LH (S) are noted to be willing to charge home, frex, so shouldn't they be cavalry then?) I note that accepting Asclepiodotus' scheme, fencers would go with the knights, not the cavalry, because he focuses on fighting exclusively hand-to-hand, not on shock tactics.

Three types does seem to be the essential working minimum: hard chargers (usually with lance), 'soft' chargers (usually with javelins) and skirmishers.  Problems start, as Andreas notes, when they begin crossing over the accepted borderlines of classification.

(I note also that the annotator in my Loeb of Asclepiodotus says there's no evidence of a threefold division of the cavalry in practice, suggesting that our author is guilty of rhetorical invention.)

An author?  Rhetorical invention?  Surely not!

Or it could be that the commentator is ignoring Seleucid and Achaean trends and perhaps focussing exclusively on the better-known Greek, Roman and general West Med powers which tended to field just 'ordinary' cavalry and Tarentines (or Numidians) or Gallic/Germanic single-type, possibly multi-purpose, variants.

[Mark G]

I recall a second hand conversation re sabins view on troop types for infantry.

Just two are needed.
Infantry and skirmishers.
But he could see a case for close formed being partially different.

Given that, having three cavalry classifications seems generous of him.

[Prufrock]

I recall a second hand conversation re sabins view on troop types for infantry.

Just two are needed.
Infantry and skirmishers.
But he could see a case for close formed being partially different.

Given that, having three cavalry classifications seems generous of him.

Phil Sabin uses two different types of infantry in Lost Battles - heavy infantry and light - but the heavies have five different subclasses, hoplites, phalangites, legionaries, archers, and everyone else. So there is actually quite a range of troops represented.

[Patrick Waterson]

Phil Sabin uses two different types of infantry in Lost Battles - heavy infantry and light - but the heavies have five different subclasses, hoplites, phalangites, legionaries, archers, and everyone else. So there is actually quite a range of troops represented.

The 'everyone else' category includes Gauls, Spanish, hypaspists, Carthaginian veteran foot (before and after Romanisation), Italian allies and miscellaneous Persian and Egyptian infantry.  Arguably, some of these could be further refined or redefined.

[Dangun]

Maybe we should not think about think about this as categories of troop types, but categories of troop interactions?

[Andreas Johansson]

Three types does seem to be the essential working minimum: hard chargers (usually with lance), 'soft' chargers (usually with javelins) and skirmishers.

Probably most DBX Cavalry have bows, not javelins, and I've long suspected they're ill served by being included in a class based on Mediterranean javelin cavalry. Others have too - there's been various calls for a "Sipahi" or "Horse Archer" class over the years. Still, since the most obvious difference - the longer range of bows - is explicitly ignored in the model, there's a good argument to combine them. (More theoretically iffy is the inclusion of "fencers" that don't shoot at all.)

I'm starting to feel I should get a copy of Lost Battles, but boy are prices for used copies of the game silly. Maybe I'll just get the book only.

[Patrick Waterson]

Maybe we should not think about think about this as categories of troop types, but categories of troop interactions?

An insightful comment.  This may be a more fruitful field to plough, although it too would require careful weeding.  Can we expand on this concept?

I'm starting to feel I should get a copy of Lost Battles, but boy are prices for used copies of the game silly. Maybe I'll just get the book only.

I would suggest getting the book.  It has everything required to play the system except pencil and paper.  Having printed map tiles and unit counters is nice rather than necessary, and the book is tolerably priced.

Probably most DBX Cavalry have bows, not javelins, and I've long suspected they're ill served by being included in a class based on Mediterranean javelin cavalry.

Belisarius fighting Goths outside Rome would certainly feel ill-served.  Attila's and Genghiz Khan's comments would probably be unprintable.

[Chris]

This is interesting  reading. I feel like I'm at University, in a lecture hall, taking notes while  a panel of professors discuss the subject.

But I wonder, what about the "poor bloody infantry"? I gather that there  is not as much complexity here with regard to the various types and their interactions? Perhaps, just perhaps, this might be considered for a different thread?

Chris

[Patrick Waterson]

But I wonder, what about the "poor bloody infantry"? I gather that there  is not as much complexity here with regard to the various types and their interactions? Perhaps, just perhaps, this might be considered for a different thread?

Please feel free to start one, Chris.

[Andreas Johansson]

But I wonder, what about the "poor bloody infantry"? I gather that there  is not as much complexity here with regard to the various types and their interactions? Perhaps, just perhaps, this might be considered for a different thread?

Start one

What got me thinking about cavalry classification and starting this thread was the different ways DBX and Triumph! divide up mounted. Their foot classifications are less conflicting, but both have larger numbers of infantry types than cavalry ones.

I would suggest getting the book.  It has everything required to play the system except pencil and paper.  Having printed map tiles and unit counters is nice rather than necessary, and the book is tolerably priced.

Thanks.

[Prufrock]

I would suggest getting the book.  It has everything required to play the system except pencil and paper.  Having printed map tiles and unit counters is nice rather than necessary, and the book is tolerably priced.

Thanks.

Yes, you don't need the boardgame. You probably have the figures already, and as Patrick says, pencil and paper or homemade counters serve just as well.

[Erpingham]

Maybe we should not think about think about this as categories of troop types, but categories of troop interactions?

Won't this be even more complicated?   The number of troop types that could interact and the number of situations they could react in?