What happens at the flanks of a line?

[Patrick Waterson]

Thanks, Roy: it is always good to get the original reasons/assumptions behind a school of thought or at least rationale.

It looks as if getting the Vikings back to being close formation troops (and in a depth matching the Saxons) would remove the hanging flank problem.  Then again, so would giving Alfred 140% of his original troop/points allowance.

Nik's original scenario was (in elements):

Saxons                                  Vikings
12 Nobles Irr B HI JLS Sh       16 Huscarls Irr B LHI 2HCW Sh
12 Peasants Irr C MI JLS Sh  16 Bondi Irr C LMI JLS Sh
2 Scouts Irr C LI JLS Sh           2 Skirmish Irr C JLS Sh

Saxon elements have 4 figures, Vikings 3.

Now we redact the Vikings as close formation troops:

Saxons                                  Vikings
12 Nobles Irr B HI JLS Sh      12 Huscarls Irr B HI 2HCW Sh
12 Peasants Irr C MI JLS Sh 12 Bondi Irr C MI JLS Sh
2 Scouts Irr C LI JLS Sh          2 Skirmish Irr C JLS Sh

The overlap problem disappears, but Alfred is still asking for trouble by attacking uphill (if he managed to attack downhill, no problem).

Finally, we look at increasing Alfred's forces (keeping the Vikings as loose formation troops):

Saxons                                    Vikings
16 Nobles Irr B HI JLS Sh        16 Huscarls Irr B LHI 2HCW Sh
16 Peasants Irr C MI JLS Sh   16 Bondi Irr C LMI JLS Sh
3 Scouts Irr C LI JLS Sh          2 Skirmish Irr C JLS Sh

Again, the overlapping problem disappears.

If we now reconfigure the Vikings as close formation troops, Alfred can outflank them and win the battle with relative ease, as he seem to have done historically.

[Patrick Waterson]

One further thought.

The problem that the then new rules concept brought in was that apparently small units from a Battlegroup could detach themselves and move round on the flank of an enemy in a devastating manoeuvre. Gamers being what they are they became adept at designing their battle groups so that the required types of units were in the appropriate types of unit were in the right place at the right time. Rule writers would, of course, point to the advantage that overlapping on the flank conferred in real life. However, as has been said before here, the Ancients may have had gaps between units in a line, but that conferred little or no advantage to the overlapper unless it was on the end of a battle line because the opponent just conformed. Only overlap at the end of the main line would really matter.

Actually a mid-line overlap proved devastating at Delium and First Mantinea.  The wargamers' trick of having a unit specially configured to whip round into an open flank has a good historical precedent in the contingent of swordsmen which accompanied each Spanish tercio - an era where armies did fight with gaps between units.

My own conclusion is that an uncountered flank attack was devastating, albeit in slow motion: one that could be countered effectively (including by getting out of the way before it got started) was much less effective.  I would suggest that one needs to make a distinction between the two.

[aligern]

As I said earlier, I have been to Edington , it is not an uphill battle for Alfred. Either it is on the plateau above Edington in which case it would be a fair and open battle or it is an ambush at the bottom of the slope from the plateau , which makes a lot of sense.

Our problem with the battle descriptions of the period is that they are very conventionalised, elements like being in dense formation being perhaps heroicisations , a sort of our lads were code formed, stoutly resisting.
It occurs to me that Edington could be confused with Asdown here?
Roy

[Nick Harbud]

If I remember correctly the Viking problem was akin to that of the  deployment distance of Celta and goes back to an original piece of both wisdom and potential error in the erly WRG rule sets.  As a reaction to the old Tony Bath rules which were based upon relationships between weapon ranges and movement quite arbitrarily decided the new school of thinking , in 1970, was that there should be a time/ground scale that was based upon researched distances of moves, ranges and deployments.
That led to debates about the size of bases for various units, but it commenced with a basic error, that was that Roman legionaries should be 'close order'. Thus Celts who were swinging long swords had to be in loose order because psiloi were in open order. The whole schema was flawed from the start because it was based upon the Roman legionary and should have started with the phalangite pikeman  in close order. Here the rule writers, at least some of them, tried to backwards engineer a solution and create dense order . The trouble with that was that  the figures that existed at the time could not be placed closer than the chosen close order.
The Viking problem, if memory serves, was because, having agreed to Celts ceding in 'loose' the argument that one needed space to swing an axe held sway. Of course it was all nonsense because you do not swing a Danish axe laterally, but vertically as is shown on the Bayeux tapestry. The romanticises and re enactors (all too often interchangeable terms :-)) held sway and created this problem whereby for equal points, the Vikings o'erlapped the Saxons and that in a rule set which rewarded the longer line.
As to Viking axemen fighting in less depth than Saxons well, we all know that s nonsense.

Thanks Roy,

Reconsidering the current troop classification is, I believe, progress in dealing with a number of the current flank-effect anomalies.  This would presumably result in early hoplite-style Romans being close order and later blade/pilum types being loose(r)?  If so, we could deal sensibly with the different reactions of spears versus swordsmen/warbands to being outflanked.

Just for the sake of completeness, have I understood correctly that blade/pilum Romans should be looser order than Vikings?

[Patrick Waterson]

As I said earlier, I have been to Edington , it is not an uphill battle for Alfred. Either it is on the plateau above Edington in which case it would be a fair and open battle or it is an ambush at the bottom of the slope from the plateau , which makes a lot of sense.

This makes excellent sense given that Guthrum arrived from retired to Chippenham, which is north-west of the battlefield - and the hill is to the south-east of Edington.  The received wisdom seems to be that Alfred advanced via Bratton and met the Danes in an east-west facing engagement with the hill benefitting the Vikings if anybody (cf. Nick's scenario), but it would have been tactically much more sensible to take position on the hill even if this involved a bit of extra marching.

[aligern]

The Edington that I visited has an escarpment that runs north to south.  The way from Chippenham runs either along the top of the escarpment or along the bottom.  If the Danes are marching along the top Alfred can stop them on flat terrain if along the bottom he can ambush them from the wooded escarpment.  One of the scenarios for the battle has the Danes retreating to a 'work'  that would provide all round defence, but be quite constricted. It did not impress me. If the battle is on the top of the escarpment then one flank of both armies is secure. A's left, G's right.

Nick, yes I think your configuration of Roman legionaries is correct, in terms of dense,close and loose the late Republican ones are loose. They can, of course, close up, it is an easy drill.
Roy

[aligern]

It might help to understand Edington if we think about why it was fought . Guthrum had defeated Alfred and wintered in Chippenham.  Alfred fled into Somerset and hid out in Athelney, surrounded by marshes and with only his hearth troop. In the spring Alfred moves into Wiltshire and gathers his levies. He marches from the assembly point towards Chippenham.  Guthrie then marches out of the town the few miles to Edington where Alfred awaits him. As I said, there are two clear routes. Neither involves Alfred fighting uphill.  It is possible that Guthrum arrives near Alfred and sits on a hill, but do our sources mention this? Alfred's army is likely the larger because he has the levies of Wiltshire, Somerset and Dorset whereas Chippenham is not a particularly large place.
Rou

[Patrick Waterson]

All of which seems to rescue WRG 7th from the appearance of being unrealistic/flawed/up the creek.  Alfred probably has the numbers, so no outflanking problem.  Danes fight in close formation so no loose formation impetuosity problem.  What we get is a hard-fought shieldwall-type battle (perhaps 3-4 bases deep) which the Saxons should gradually win by attrition and a bit of nibbling on the flanks.

Nick, yes I think your configuration of Roman legionaries is correct, in terms of dense, close and loose the late Republican ones are loose. They can, of course, close up, it is an easy drill.
Roy

This looks like a potentially fruitful separate discussion topic: How Loose Were Early Legionaries?    I would suggest that if they opened up it would be for manoeuvre and they would close up to fight - maybe not too unlike Vikings?

[Mark G]

careful Pat, we know where this started out in 2011.  it is a snake with no end to its tail.

[aligern]

I suspect that the key to fighting the Vikings is that they are mostly seansoned warriors organised into boat's crews of say 30 men and then by jarl contingents (Guthrum is going to  have even tougher types).  The Saxons will have some good men, but rather more levies who are not as practised as the Vikings. Where the Saxons have advantage is in numbers, where the Vikings benefit is in cohesion and possibly in level of armouring.
I also, as some of you will have heard before, think that the Vikings have more bows integrated into their units. This is because bows are a ship board weapon. My contention is that  the Danes have more missile capability and hat this is what drives  Alfred at Ashdown to attack uphill before his brother,the king, arrives because the English army, though greater in numbers, is losing the missile exchange and he must close before morale becomes degraded.
Seventh edition would cope really well with this, indeed conceptually it was WRG's finest hour.

Roy

[Justin Taylor]

In terms of WRG 7th, I played it once and never again.

In terms of translating battles to games, we had the same problem in Warhammer Ancient Battles, the lists said that the Vikings classified as light infantry (because they were said to be more mobile) and could not form shieldwall. The Saxons however were close order infantry and could form shieldwall. Result (in WAB) Saxons beat the Vikings more often than not, simply as a result of a list writer saying, it shall be this way.

Obviously Vikings did use the shieldwall but I think they (at least the raiders amongst them) would cheerfully run as a loose order 'mob' - ideal for attacking the flank of engaged enemy. But did they have a flank to go round?

PS in WAB2 lists Vikings can now adopt the Shieldwall formation (and move whilst in it).

[Patrick Waterson]

careful Pat, we know where this started out in 2011.  it is a snake with no end to its tail.

Ah, those were the days! 

Concerning Roy's points about Saxon and Viking armies, is it worth someone starting a thread on this?  Assuming we have people who would be interested in such a discussion ...

[aligern]

Yes, start a thread, let a thousand flowers bloom!
Roy

[Paul Innes]

New thread duly started, Roy - see the forum for Rules Systems Discussions.

Paul

[andrew881runner]

if I had to lead a phalanx I would make my men stretch the line in the last moment so to overlap the enemy line. Simple and effective. Battle is won, Job is done, go back home to make some cute preteen child play the "make me happy so I can teach you everything" game. Well am I an ancient Greek or not? Joking.