Classification of infantry - the return of the revenge of the extra medium foot!

[Mark G]

There are a lot of contortions going on here to fit a combined thing into a single box.

I shall try again.

Separate armour and weapons from your classification.  The basic formation is about density, that has the greatest effect on movement and manoverability, and is the fundamental which doesn't change.

So start there. Close, open and skirmishing are your three categories.

Within that, what ever the armour or the weapons are is an add on to the basic.

But it is not the basic.

Consider what would happen if a tent had its armour stolen overnight?  Would they be sent to a different formation for the morning battle?  Or would they be expected to form up where they were supposed to be when they army was drafted for the campaign?

If a hastatii has more armour than a phalangite, what sense is there in basing classification on armour weight?

Basic facts and add ons . 

[Patrick Waterson]

Separate armour and weapons from your classification.  The basic formation is about density, that has the greatest effect on movement and manoverability, and is the fundamental which doesn't change.

So start there. Close, open and skirmishing are your three categories.

Looking like a plan ... or a WRG system.

Within that, what ever the armour or the weapons are is an add on to the basic.

Logical so far ... and very WRG.

Consider what would happen if a tent had its armour stolen overnight?  Would they be sent to a different formation for the morning battle?  Or would they be expected to form up where they were supposed to be when they army was drafted for the campaign?

The nearest equivalent to this would be El Mansourah, where the Frankish knights fought hard on the first day, but on the morning of the second day were so bruised they could not don their armour and so fought only in aketons - in exactly the same deployment and formation that they used when properly armoured.  (They lost heavily, but it supports what I take to be Mark's point about formation density being consistent and fundamental.)

If a hastatii has more armour than a phalangite, what sense is there in basing classification on armour weight?

Not too sure what the point is here; for a start, the average Polybian hastatus had on the whole less body armour than a phalangite (a metal chestplate on straps compared to a thorax covering the whole torso) but I take the statement to mean (in WRG terms) that for LHI (loose formation metal-armoured infantry) the 'L' (loose) not the 'HI' (metal-armoured infantry) should be considered the primary classification.

[Andreas Johansson]

I think one of the problems is we are talking about generalising (or abstracting) over literally thousands of years of military practice over multiple continents.  If we were writing rules for Romans to meet Macedonians, we could focus our definitions more and have Phalangite and Legionary as their own categories, without worry how that might impact on Germans or Daylami or samurai.

Well yes. Problem is, my interests are wide and my memory is limited, so being able to use the same rules for Romans as for Hittites and Habsburg-Netherlandish is awfully convenient.

(Also, if you, as most ancient-medieval rules do, insist on covering sundry obscure types you pretty much have to base their characteristics on better known ones we hope were similar.)

[Erpingham]

Well yes. Problem is, my interests are wide and my memory is limited, so being able to use the same rules for Romans as for Hittites and Habsburg-Netherlandish is awfully convenient.

This might work if armies only fought their contemporaries but they don't.  So you might have a ruleset that treated chariots and men-at-arms in full plate as "knights" (perhaps on social/morale grounds) which is fine if chariots fight chariots or MAA fight MAA but jars if they fight each other.  I suppose we must decide what level of abstraction we require to produce as few overarching classes as we can.

In terms of close, medium and loose, as Patrick has said, this is what WRG did.  We can make certain generalisations from order, particularly about moving across terrain.  But then we have to have a variety of modifiers e.g. aggression, ability to take punishment to represent different fighting styles and perhaps some command & control difference, like regular/irregular.  We could think on whether we had a seperate "shooter" class, or whether this is just another modifier to general classes.

[RichT]

Well as as already been said, I don't think formation density strictly speaking is a good measure, since if the tacticians are to be trusted (and I don't know that they are, on this), psiloi used the same file intervals as hoplites, and the intermediate 4.5 foot file interval of WRG LHI etc was entirely imaginary. But if we use density (close, open, skirmish) as a proxy for fighting style (high intensity hand to hand, low intensity mixed, and missile), then the end result is the same. I agree completely that armour (and weapons come to that) should be a secondary consideration, not the defining feature.

I agree that the New Guinea (proposed Homeric) style seems to be a fair model of the low intensity style (but note that New Guineans are in very open order, and Homeric infantry have the option to close up into close order, so close that it formed the inspiration for the Macedonian phalanx. Just to muddy the waters further).

What remains unclear to me in these imaginary rules we are developing is what the differences between these types should be? I'm assuming we are all sane enough to avoid bottom up design for effect differences in the way the toy soldiers move about on the table. So what are the practical differences between types? My little table a few posts back suggested one very simple approach.

Maybe someone needs to propose what set of classifications they would like to use, as it's unclear to me what we are in favour of or against any more.

[Erpingham]

Ok, in an attempt to offer some clue as to how I would do it, my medieval rules (based on Dux B) have these infantry classes

Irregulars
Elite Irregulars
Ordinary Irregulars
Close Order Infantry
Dismounted MAA
Elite Infantry
Common Infantry
Levy infantry
Bows
Longbow
Other foot bow
Levy bow
Other
Foot Skirmishers

The close-order types have worse difficult terrain performance, though this is in part through loss of combat bonuses.  Close order infantry are generally tougher than their irregular or bow social equivalents, reflecting better protection and, in the case of bows, being less expected to get up close and dirty.  Irregulars can be fierce, which makes them charge more wildly.  Skirmishers can be a nuisance but have low survivability.  Note that this reflects medieval conditions - true skirmishers were much rarer than in classical times.

You could collapse this.  A lot of the sub classes (maybe all) could go to be handled by modifiers but I think you'd have too complex a factor table to work through then.  This is part of the uncertainty we see in the debate generally.  How much do the characteristics of the types get loaded into the type itself and how many are modifiers, handled in other parts of the rules?

[Andreas Johansson]

This might work if armies only fought their contemporaries but they don't.

This seems to be a quirk specifically of ancients and medievals players - I never seem to see things like WSS English v. SYW French, despite there being popular rulessets (e.g. Black Powder) that cover both wars.

So you might have a ruleset that treated chariots and men-at-arms in full plate as "knights" (perhaps on social/morale grounds) which is fine if chariots fight chariots or MAA fight MAA but jars if they fight each other.  I suppose we must decide what level of abstraction we require to produce as few overarching classes as we can.

Here I'm firmly with Phil Barker, who in the DBMM rulebook says regarding troop classification that "The primary concern has been to reflect relationships between historically opposed types, and not to speculate unduly on the relative effectiveness of anachronistic opponents." If the rules can handle Qadesh and Agincourt, I don't care very much what they make of Ramses II v. Henry V.

[Mark G]

Not to say you are right or wrong, Anthony, but you do notice that your four classifications are not exclusive.

What would you do with an irregular close order bowman?

[Erpingham]

Not to say you are right or wrong, Anthony, but you do notice that your four classifications are not exclusive.

What would you do with an irregular close order bowman?

As irregular is a class of close combat infantry, you wouldn't get an irregular bowman.  Bowman isn't actually defined by formation but function, being troops who can lay down a heavier weight of shot than mere skirmishers.  That said, I wouldn't personally envisage medieval archers in close order and rigid ranks and files anyway. 

[RichT]

It's not clear to me what Irregulars are though - it sounds like a description of quality or training rather than a fighting style. How do irregulars differ from the close order infantry? Otherwise it feels as if you have (in the terms I've been proposing):

Irregulars = ?
Close order infantry = HI
Bows = LI
Other = LI as well only worse

Then the other distinctions are about quality, armour and weight of shooting.

[Erpingham]

The original Dux B has "warriors" instead of irregulars, who are "loose clumps of fierce foot".  So, as I've separated them into "fierce" and "not fierce" iregulars are "loose clumps of foot" who might be fierce.  So, in my eyes, they are what I grew up thinking of as LMI   In my way of thinking, they represent troops like ribaulds, highlanders, Almoghavars, probably Irish if I had any.

I'm not convinced by the "archers are all LI argument".  I think we are in danger of falling into the limitations of the ancient tactiticians conception, which are based on a period with few archers.  Avoid if you like medieval examples and think of loads of Chinese crossbows, or Persian archers making their opponents "fight in the shade".  Are these the same as small units of highly skilled archers, harassing the enemy with aimed shots?

[RichT]

OK so Irregulars are MI

Do "loose clumps of fierce foot" close to hand to hand combat with other foot (close order foot) and stay there? When they do so do they remain loose? (I'm aware the answers to these q.s may be '"we don't know")

Fair enough re archers as not LI, though you are still thinking of LI being open order, and I'm saying to get away from defining troop types by their file intervals, and instead define them by how they fight. Archers fight at a distance (exclusively, if they can help it) - therefore they are LI. But for massed archers without the ability or inclination to 'evade' maybe a different type is needed, or range-capable MI, or something.

I like the object oriented metaphor for this which I will expound on when I have a moment, unless you're lucky.

[Erpingham]

OK so Irregulars are MI

Could be.

Do "loose clumps of fierce foot" close to hand to hand combat with other foot (close order foot) and stay there? When they do so do they remain loose? (I'm aware the answers to these q.s may be '"we don't know")

I think "don't know" is the answer.  I admit imagining them less formed and more fluid than Close Order and maybe clumping together more in some circumstances (e.g. if attacked by cavalry). 

Fair enough re archers as not LI, though you are still thinking of LI being open order, and I'm saying to get away from defining troop types by their file intervals, and instead define them by how they fight.

I actually thought I defining by the way they fought.  Either massed shooters or harassing individual shots.  Though, I agree, I'd see archers closer together than skirmishers, so I'm not being rigourous one thing or another.

range-capable MI, or something.

Probably about right, with generally less desire to get stuck in.

[Andreas Johansson]

Stepping back a bit, I think everyone but Justin agrees that there is such a thing as Medium Infantry, even though we don't agree exactly who qualifies?

[Erpingham]

Stepping back a bit, I think everyone but Justin agrees that there is such a thing as Medium Infantry, even though we don't agree exactly who qualifies?

Yes, or exactly what the qualifying parameters are, at least in part because we are dealing with a long and wide catchment of potential candidates.