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

[PMBardunias]

I think you either need these designations to be rather abstract or reduced to ridiculous detail and multiple tactical options for each troop type.

This essentially represents the two trends in wargaming thought; the latter (detail and troop types) characterised rules sets of the 1970s while abstraction seems to rule today.

It seems to me that we are trying to  force heavy and light designations into a model designed to cover Napoleonic light vs line troops, where formation and mobility is the deciding factor.

I like your multiple axis projection. I did one a while back to explain the function of shield walls in various times and cultures. I was able to show three functions- a Barricade to protect missile troops and maybe fire missles as well, such as Sparabara or a Fulcum, a Bastion, from which to either send out skirmishers from the line or allow them to retire behind, as with Triarii, and a Bludgeon, the straight up melee form. Two of the three usually have a missile component, but usually any shield wall can do all three functions, as with Archaic Greeks and Saxons.

For shield walls, you would need melee score and a missile score.  You would not get super troops because there is a trade off. For example, in the real world, archers do not fire well over deep ranks and they give up a big range advantage being far back.  This limits the depth of any shield wall backed by missiles and lowers its melee value.  Sparabara thus formed in one or two ranks, Maurice's fulcum advances in 4 ranks.

So you end up with values on an arbitrary scale like Melee=3, Missile=8 for Sparabara and Melee 8, Melee = 8, Missile =0 for classical hoplites, explaining the results of their clashes. Archaic hoplites of Tyrtaios' day maybe  Melee = 5, Missile = 3, and so on. 

Cohesiveness and the benefit of being in a group you can sink into some morale factor. But massed troops are more fragile than skirmishing troops, and often far less "trained".  This is tied to the expectations the troops have. Hoplites for example expect to remain in formation and move forward to win.  If you break their formation or even just push them back, they will rout because the expectation is not met.  Simple psiloi can attack in a fairly well organized swarm, throw things, run away and scatter, and come right back, simply because they never expected to stand. The trade off here is that they will break at the drop of a hat.

[Patrick Waterson]

It seems to me that we are trying to  force heavy and light designations into a model designed to cover Napoleonic light vs line troops, where formation and mobility is the deciding factor.

There is something in that: many wargamers grow up on Napoleonics, and old habits die hard.

I like your multiple axis projection. I did one a while back to explain the function of shield walls in various times and cultures. I was able to show three functions- a Barricade to protect missile troops and maybe fire missles as well, such as Sparabara or a Fulcum, a Bastion, from which to either send out skirmishers from the line or allow them to retire behind, as with Triarii, and a Bludgeon, the straight up melee form. Two of the three usually have a missile component, but usually any shield wall can do all three functions, as with Archaic Greeks and Saxons.

And the 'Marian'/Caesarian/Early Imperial Romans: the bludgeon (cuneus) when they want to shift their foes, the barricade when holding a geographic feature and the bastion when measuring up against a foe or simply holding out against cavalry and hoping it will go away.

Nice classifications, by the way.

For shield walls, you would need melee score and a missile score.  You would not get super troops because there is a trade off.

Agreed.  In addition, the shield wall is of restricted mobility and its flanks need guarding; against such foes on the tabletop, my approach in days of your was to amuse the shield wall with skirmishers backed by a small 'bastion' while the main strength of the army went to chew up the wings.  It usually worked, as many wargamers used to stick to one battle plan and rarely kept reserves.

Cohesiveness and the benefit of being in a group you can sink into some morale factor. But massed troops are more fragile than skirmishing troops, and often far less "trained".  This is tied to the expectations the troops have. Hoplites for example expect to remain in formation and move forward to win.  If you break their formation or even just push them back, they will rout because the expectation is not met.  Simple psiloi can attack in a fairly well organized swarm, throw things, run away and scatter, and come right back, simply because they never expected to stand. The trade off here is that they will break at the drop of a hat.

The Wargames Research Group (WRG) ancients period rules coped with this as folows: troops were graded for morale as 'A' (elite and household), 'B' (veteran) 'C' (average/standard) and 'D' (raw and/or unenthusiastic)*.  'D' class would rout after one push-back; 'C' two; 'B' three and 'A' four.  Because the melee random factor could vary the outcome of a round of melee, reversing who was pushing back whom, 'A' and 'B' class troops were very resilient provided they were facing opponents of similar weapon and armour type - if seriously outmatched (e.g. sidearms vs pikes), they would lose anyway.  The extra resilience of 'A' and 'B' morale troops also meant that one had time to send someone to their rescue if one had anyone to send.

*There were also 'E' class troops in some versions; these are best described as 'target practice'.

Psiloi and other skirmishing types had an 'evade' move which actuated in reaction to being charged; there was a little variation in the possible move distance, so a fast attacker could catch a laggard skirmisher.  If caught, skirmishers were almost invariably routed by formed troops; the rare exceptions involved high-quality skirmishers and very poor quality formed troops.

WRG rules recognised a 'loose formation' category intermediate between psiloi and hoplites (and their equivalents in other cultures); into this category were placed, or shoehorned, all troops who showed a combination of melee capability with mobility and often missilery, such as Gauls (although Galatians were classed as close formation, as were Germans), Spanish (Iberians) and most hill and mountain-dwelling cultures.  Vikings began as close but were changed to loose following consideration of their fighting well in woods and on/from ships; they have traditionaly been a classification problem.  At least one now largely forgotten rules set got round the problem by allowing them (and others) to change their 'dressing order' from close to loose and vice versa, which worked well enough.  However an in-battle change of dressing order is regarded as too complex - and sometimes too unfounded - by today's wargamers; a pity, as it could solve some of our formation problems by making troop types impossible to classify as either/or into a more useful and acceptable both/and.

[Patrick Waterson]

We seem to be getting most caught up on massed archers, which makes me wonder if these aren't, like 'warband', a wargamer's construct. How do massed archers differ from typical psiloi? If in formation density then psiloi used similar formations if the tacticians are to be believed. If shooting style, do we know that massed barrage was very different in effect from aimed shots (even assuming these are actual differences)?

I shal try my best to answer, or at least consider, this.

Psiloi and skirmishing types generally are held to have used an open formation and done quite a bit of manoeuvring for aimed individual shots and the intentional avoidance of same.  Massed archers, conversely, are generally held to have loosed volleys at massed targets with much greater immediate effect against non-arrow-proof opponents.  These may be generalisations but they capture the flavour of the respective formations - individual aiming by men who had room to manoeuvre as opposed to mass missile discharges by men who had not.  This seems to have held true even when the bow was replaced by the musket; the two different styles are evident there, particularly in the Napoleonic period.

What did massed archers (Persians, Indians, English/Welsh longbows) do if opposing HI marched up to them and tried to engage them in hand to hand combat? Did they evade/fall back? Did they fight it out with melee weapons? If so were they any good?

On the whole, they seem to have tried to ensure that opposing HI did not manage to close; as and when it did, they fought back - at least the Persians did at Marathon (where they themselves won but their subject contingents collapsed) and Plataea (where they lost); I am not sure about Indians, but our Hydaspes sources give the impression they waited for contact and then were defeated in melee.  English generally faced HI only when up against Scots, and these tended to melt away under sustained longbow archery, often changing course to engage the English dismounted men-at-arms.  I cannot offhand think of any instance in which Scots HI made it into contact with English longbowmen, although English longbowmen happily charged the Scots' flank at Verneuil, with noticeable effect.

Classing these as bow-armed MI seems reasonable to me - it means they can fight hand to hand, but aren't great at it. They are fairly manoeuvrable and capable on terrain, but less so than dedicated skirmishers.

Probably works.  Mixed units (melee troops with archers, e.g Assyrians) might muddy the waters a bit.

Their shooting ability will probably be similar to LI archers - which to me seems reasonable, though individual rules might want for example to upgrade longbows to reflect their effectiveness.

I demur, because massed archers aimed to deliver volume at speed while skirmishing types aimed to deliver individual missiles with accuracy, so their shooting was more protracted and while arguably much more efficient was also considerably less effective. 

[PMBardunias]

Often these discussions hinge on arms and armor dictating formation.  This video is the closest you will ever see to two Hoplite phalanxes met in battle, and of course they would be psiloi at best, and surely very few know where they are in rank and file. The main difference is that they would clash at spear range rather than fist range.

You can see how Mardonius might catch a rock to the head from the rear ranks- so a missile ranking as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqIAWcTLKx8

[PMBardunias]

What did massed archers (Persians, Indians, English/Welsh longbows) do if opposing HI marched up to them and tried to engage them in hand to hand combat? Did they evade/fall back? Did they fight it out with melee weapons? If so were they any good? I don't know the answers, though for Indians I think the answer is nobody knows, and for Persians, that there were also spearmen in the unit (perhaps the same men) who fought if they had to.

Massed archers/missile troops are generally fronted by a barricade of spearmen, as in my diagram above.  We can see this play out at plataia. The hoplites are stopped cold by the Persian Spara initially. If reports of feigned retreat on the Greek side carry any weight, it was no easy thing to break past the wall.  Once the wall was down though, the rest of the ranks were left attacking in sub units to attempt to fragment the Greek line and grabbing dorys in desperation. The Spara would have easily held the hoplites up long enough for a flank attack by cavalry, but that never materialized due to terrain and the threat of the other Greeks lurking around.

The key is that the two together are one unit. You cannot separate the first 3 ranks of a fulcum from the rest behind it, for example.

[Andreas Johansson]

Apropos of all this I was just looking at Lost Battles to see how Philip Sabin arrived at his AR (massed archer) category and noted footnote 28 to ch. 2:

"One system infamously even rated Indian archers, regarded as the lowest status element of the army, as 'superior' because of their large bows and two-handed swords, thereby placing them in the same category as English medieval longbowmen!"

The reference is to DBM (is this infamous by the way?).

To DBM, Indian archers are 'superior' because of their weapon types. To Phil this is patently absurd because Indians are poor quality. Polybian v. Livian.

The other Phil effectively conceded the point in DBMM, where Indian archers are Ordinary early on and Inferior in post-Maurya times.

(DBX has never been very consistent if it grades on equipment or demonstrated quality, but in general DBMM represents a move in the latter direction compared to DBM.)

[simonw]

I don't think that it's the best way to 'classify' Light Medium Infantry by the 'spacing' of men in the ranks. Trained Heavy Infantry could  likely manoeuvre in a looser formation before 'closing'up' for melee. Additionally, 'Phalanx' troops were probably the most 'dense' formation and therefore the least tactically 'flexible'.
I believe that the the best way is to 'classify' troops by 'function' and in this respect, there were troops more capable than others of operating in 'rough' terrain. In 'good going' though, it is more than likely that these troops formed up 'normally' in the main battleline as 'normal' Heavy Foot (e.g. Hypaspists, Iphicratean 'Peltasts', Thureophoroi etc.).
Early 'Peltasts'  were almost certainly 'anti-skirmisher' skirmishers and had no other 'role' in the battleline.  As such, they are best classified as 'skirmishers'. Later 'peltasts' (post Iphicrates) were probably normal 'battleline' troops in good going (no skirmishing role) but possibly had a 'capability' to operate in 'rough terrain' (the same as many 'Warband' types). I note that the Ancient authors' use of the term 'Peltatst' is in many cases, somewhat ambiguous.
Accordingly, there is scope for an 'Auxilia' type of troop classification with a (maybe) lesser melee capability than 'true' Heavy Infantry in open terrain but a capability to 'beat' skirmishers and Heavy Infantry in rough going but that would really be 'the limit'. I don't believe that they should necessarily have any significantly better 'manoeuvrability' than normal Heavy Foot (e.g. ''About Face', Evade etc.), but just a better capacity to cope with/operate in rough going.
As a final thought, SOME massed archers could be considered to have 'Auxilia' type rough terrain capabilities but others would only be 'battleline' Infantry with a lower melee capability. This would vary from army to army. I'm not sure that it's possible to classify them 'all the same' just because they are 'massed archers' (e.g. Mauryan Indians versus Mediaeval Longbowmen).
This is my 'interpretation. Others will have theirs. Pity the poor rules-writers!

[Erpingham]

I quite like Paul's "shieldwall" diagram.  It is essentially a breakdown of the HI category, I feel.  There are one or two issues for it.  Take a pike phalanx.  It is a lineal descendant of a "bludgeon" but doesn't necessarily (often?) have the large shields for missile protection.  I'd count it in there but then "shieldwall" starts to become an aide memoire (like warband) rather than an actual thing.

The main issue though is it doesn't solve the MI question.  Were there a group with a less solid, more flexible fighting style with the "oomph" to stand toe-to-toe with a shieldwall/HI?  What about massed archers who did away with the outer crust of big shields?

I don't think it is possible to be too dogmatic about the close combat abilities of longbowmen.  I doubt if they sought direct conflict with heavy infantry except in advantageous circumstances (broken formations, difficult terrain) but the evidence is thinner than we'd like.  On the specific issue of fighting Scots spearmen, I can't think of a cast iron example but there are several battles were it might have happened unrecorded (Sark would be an obvious candidate).

While I see Simon's point about spacings, I do think there is there may be a "form/function" element.  HI infantry are closely spaced to do what they do, LI are loosely spaced likewise.  As to the tacticians idea that LI formed up at the same spacing as HI, I can only think this is to manouever rather than fight, unless the LI block acts as a reserve, from which groups move out to skirmish.

[PMBardunias]

I quite like Paul's "shieldwall" diagram.  It is essentially a breakdown of the HI category, I feel.  There are one or two issues for it.  Take a pike phalanx.  It is a lineal descendant of a "bludgeon" but doesn't necessarily (often?) have the large shields for missile protection.  I'd count it in there but then "shieldwall" starts to become an aide memoire (like warband) rather than an actual thing.

Thanks. Because of the emphasis on functionality, I actually have no problem with considering  sarissaphoroi or renaissance pike as shield walls.  A good breast plate is simply a shield that is worn. An example of this logic would be the way Marurice tells us that a fulcum must be multitiered overlapping shields if the men have no greaves. Implication being that a shield wall of men with greaves have added armor that performs the function of the first rank of shields in protecting the mens legs.  By extension, an armored fellow is a defacto wall of metal, shield or not.  Then there is the possible protection of the pikes themselves vs missiles. In any case, we don't see sarissaphoroi being particularly vulnerable to missiles.

The main difference between a wall of shields and a wall of men is the manner in which tactile information, in the form of touching shields, aids in maintaining cohesion and spacing. This is more important withe less trained troops.

The main issue though is it doesn't solve the MI question.  Were there a group with a less solid, more flexible fighting style with the "oomph" to stand toe-to-toe with a shieldwall/HI?  What about massed archers who did away with the outer crust of big shields?

Are there any massed archers without a crust of shielded spearmen or heavy men at arms, Cheval de frise, etc. who actually stood to face charging heavies?  It may be obvious, but having charged archers shooting mock arrows, archers need to turn and flee quite a bit before they would be able to take a point blank shot, or they die.  If you put even a single shielded man in front, they get to take that shot. I would be suprised to find massed archers without some form of "crust".

[Patrick Waterson]

Are there any massed archers without a crust of shielded spearmen or heavy men at arms, Cheval de frise, etc. who actually stood to face charging heavies?  It may be obvious, but having charged archers shooting mock arrows, archers need to turn and flee quite a bit before they would be able to take a point blank shot, or they die.  If you put even a single shielded man in front, they get to take that shot. I would be suprised to find massed archers without some form of "crust".

That is a very good question: Egyptians have been thought to have deployed 'pure' archer units, often unprotected, although the only preserved model groups of Egyptian soldiery (from the Middle Kingdom) are mixed spearmen and archers.  In the New Kingdom, the (18th Dynasty period) Amarna letters often plead: "Send archers!" which suggests these could have been a distinct and separate combat arm.  Moving on to the 19th Dynasty period, Ramses II's reliefs show square blocks of spearmen (no infantry archers) on the march, but Merneptah's account of dealing with his Cyrenian and Libyan opponents has archers play the main role in the battle.  Hence in the 19th Dynasty there might have been a separation into distinct combat arms.

So New Kingdom Egyptian archers might have deployed en bloc, 'uncrusted', but we have only indications without proof.  If they ard their weaponry and techniques were qualitatively superior to anything the opposition could throw at them, then 'uncrusted' archer blocks could have been viable, which is not the same as being able to say that they actually existed.  That said, armour for archers, at least in the front rank, might serve the function of a 'crust' without the need to hide behind spearmen.  So I think the jury is still out on that one.  Mine is, anyway.

[Erpingham]

Are there any massed archers without a crust of shielded spearmen or heavy men at arms, Cheval de frise, etc. who actually stood to face charging heavies?  It may be obvious, but having charged archers shooting mock arrows, archers need to turn and flee quite a bit before they would be able to take a point blank shot, or they die.  If you put even a single shielded man in front, they get to take that shot. I would be suprised to find massed archers without some form of "crust".

I think we have to think about this "crust" a bit more.  I would certainly say that it was common for medieval archers to be in single type units, rather than mixed ones, certainly High Middle Ages onward.  We do, however, see the use of the pavise in later formations but the impression is that this is mainly missile proofing rather than providing a fighting front.

How massed archers approached line-of-battle combat is an interesting one.  You don't place troops who are likely to fall back if the enemy approaches at any key point in your line, unless you've planned for that.  So either they had some combat ability or they fought in conjunction with heavier units. 

Thinking more generally about shieldwalls and archers, I think I'd divide things on the basis of proportion.  An archer assisted shieldwall would be e.g. where close combat component is 2/3 or more.  Below that you are dealing with a MI unit with missile capabilities.  You can adjust the melee capability of the MI unit depending on various factors (aggression, equipment, morale - the usual suspects).

[Justin Swanton]

If Agincourt is anything to go by the English longbowmen had plenty of time to shoot the advancing French first line that was slowed down by the muddy terrain. Nonetheless the French survived well enough to charge the English line with enough impact to momentarily force it back. I doubt archers of any other period would have fared better. Massed or non-skirmisher archers have to be prepared to be contacted by an advancing HI line, and since, unlike psiloi, they don't have a support line to retire behind, they would have to hold their ground or break. So they melee.

A typical maximum bow range is about 200 metres. How long would it take HI to cover that distance whilst under fire? In the first place the HI get the full effect of the archer volleys only at extreme range, with rear rankers shooting over those in front. The beaten ground covered by such a volley wouldn't be very deep, about as deep as the archer line itself, so walking at a cautious 2km/h with shields up, an HI line 8 ranks and about 12 metres deep will be past the beaten zone in about half a minute (33 metres per minute), presuming the archers themselves are 8 ranks deep. After that only the front rank(s) of the archers can continue to shoot. At 2km/h the HI will reach them in 6 minutes. It is highly unlikely the archers will be able to stop them dead in their tracks by missile fire alone.

[gavindbm]

However an in-battle change of dressing order is regarded as too complex - and sometimes too unfounded - by today's wargamers; a pity, as it could solve some of our formation problems by making troop types impossible to classify as either/or into a more useful and acceptable both/and.

Memory says Mortem et Gloriam does include this.  It defines some troops as flexible.  This is used to represent infantry shifting between a dense and looser formation (HI to MI...), and for certain horse archers for shifting between open order/skirmish and denser cavalry mode.

[gavindbm]

If Agincourt is anything to go by the English longbowmen had plenty of time to shoot the advancing French first line that was slowed down by the muddy terrain. Nonetheless the French survived well enough to charge the English line with enough impact to momentarily force it back.

A recent Slingshot (324?) had an interesting discussion about how to reflect the effect of massed archers in DBA (a model for effect set of rules) where the author discussed effect and how to model that effect.

[gavindbm]

Is there in fact a 'Z axis', a third branch of soldiery exemplified by the massed archer, and all three meet in the middle?  Is the continuum in fact more like a triangle?  (In such a case, the three axes would not meet int he middle, and it is challenging to think of a historical troop type which would represent the union of all three.)

The triangle would conceptually give us three continua:
1) between dispersed formation skirmishers and close formation melee infantry,
2) between dispersed formation missilemen and massed archers (call them massed missilemen but it was rare for any weapons system other than archery) and
3) between close formation melee infantry and massed archers.  The third continuum would be the home for Achaemenid infantry (and perhaps most other Bibilcal infantry types) and Late Imperial Roman mixed missile and melee formations (notably the late legion).

This is interesting.

Is the troop type at the mid-point along all these axes the fighters of Papua New Guinea etc - where they are moderately massed and throw spears at each other from close range with occasional hero rushing out to fight hand-to-hand?