Light or skirmish infantry

[Imperial Dave]

yes we have bounced around this before. Yes its not straight forward to answer. BUT, I would like new opinions as to the differences between the two especially in terms of wargaming and history.

For me, the historical aspect is not clear cut and I will leave it to others* to argue the precedents or references at least. I just 'feel' (ie an opinion based on a few aspects none of which would hold up in a court of law!) that I ascribe to the following:

1. skirmisher infantry (different to skirmisher cavalry - another topic) were primarily part of the main infantry body and used in the lead up to the main event ie battle lines clashing. In this respect I am not convinced they operated far from their main lines and in certain circumstances would have been a detachment from the main infantry body ie they get 'reabsorbed' after performing their function of lobbing stuff at the opposition in an attempt to slow/break up/unsteady them
2. As to the point above, they could be armoured or unarmoured (to within reason obviously re the armoured version) so to call them 'Light' might be a misnomer
3. Light infantry were primarily lesser armoured infantry who could operate in a variety of guises and presumably able to cope with a variety of terrain better than their heavily armoured brethren. This would mean that they could potentially operate as skirmishers (in front as a screening force - see 1.), operate as scouting bodies/advance parties, used for fighting in difficult terrain and on occasion form up to operate as front line troops

The only tenuous (some very tenuous!) examples in history off the top of my head would be

- amongst others, references to Ekdromoi as 'runners out' from the hoplite body as lighter armoured troops who would chase off other skirmisher screens in Greek warfare (skirmishers who are part of their parent body)
- references to Harold's troops being lighter armoured for traipsing in the Welsh hills and valleys in the campaigns of the early 1060s ie coping with the terrain and type of warfare faced (light infantry able to cope with poor terrain but essentially battle line troop)
- A lack of sophisticated organisation and troop types/roles/army size/battlefield behaviour in tribal-not-professional armies especially wrt 'Dark Age Britain' circ 6th C onwards (ie all infantry was essentially battle line troops of which some could perform skirmisher screen duties who dashed out did the biz and ran back)

So in light (get it...?) of that I am leaning more and more to the infantry were either Heavy (armoured) or light (armoured) of which the likelihood was that the light (armoured) infantry could also provide skirmishing duties in front of the main line or operate in poor terrain when required. It certainly puts the cat amongst the pigeons with regards to my wargaming arrangements and rulesets...maybe time to go back to my own set of rules for a polish up?
   
* much cleverer and well read than me

[RichT]

I would say that skirmishing is what light infantry do, so there is no difference between LI and skirmishers, just different words for the same thing. But there was probably also (at various times) a type or class of infantry who were nippier than heavies, might have had missiles, and could do a bit of skirmishing or a bit of standing and fighting, as required. Call these LHI if you like 

Concerning ekdromoi, I don't think these are a separate troop type; they are just hoplites tasked with a particular function (chasing off peltasts). They might have had lighter armour - there's no evidence - or they might just have been younger and fitter.

[Imperial Dave]

I guess part of the thrust of my post is to discern whether we have too many sub category troops on the table top. Certainly in regards to the lighter side of things

[Mark G]

Where do you place peltasts?

Where do you place thureophorai?

So we get the parameters clear, they are often boundary marker units in any debate on skirmishers

[Ian61]

Can I guess that the problem that Holly is struggling with here is that if these troops can at one moment skirmishers and in the next more bunched up as a fighting unit then we have basing problems and rule problems to show this flexibility with our physical but rigid models?

[Erpingham]

I think Richard is going in the right direction.  Skirmishing is a function.  It has its own characteristics, like freer movement and looser formations.  It is up to you whether you insist skirmishers have to be missile armed.  Skirmishers are often lightly equipped but I don't think light equipment defines skirmishers.
Maybe its worth a thought experiment.  Two warriors face each other on opposite sides.  Each has a shield, sword, javelins, a helmet but no armour.  One is a Gaul, the other a Roman velite. Are they the same troop type?  If not, why not? 

[Imperial Dave]

that would be for commentators far more learned than me to answer. In my head I am trying to keep my rules simple and to see how best I can fit troop classifications according to function in a very simplified way.

I have a feeling I may be in a small minority with my musings and they are just that musings for general debate 

[Imperial Dave]

gotcha...

ok, thinking about this in the obverse way...

how many functions on the battlefield are there for infantry?

[DBS]

At one level, there is close quarter combat with melee weapons (perhaps supplemented with short range missiles, whether pila, thrown spears, or one or two javelins); and there is true missile combat with long range weapons such as bows and slings.

Now, of course there is the question of how closely formed the infantry are, and their level of protection.  But the former is frankly a choice, based on doctrine/tradition, perceived effectiveness, and terrain.  Put another way, there is nothing that makes a Roman legionary fight only in close order (and that was not necessarily as close as some opponents), other than a deliberate decision so to do.  Indeed, that may be where the Principate auxiliary comes in - their kit seems not to have been much different to that of the legionaries, but they are usually assumed (rightly or wrongly) to have more of an open order capability.

As for protection, that is probably a question of economics first and foremost.  Poor people act as light infantry, not because being poor makes them better light infantry, but because, lacking the capacity to afford heavier gear, it is the economically (and socially acceptable) best way for them to make a battlefield contribution.  Yes, there are the "specialist" ethnicities amongst light troops, such as the Balearic slingers and Cretan archers, but that is a specific niche weapon skill, and it is possible that "Cretans" were actually quite well protected by light infantry standards.

The two outliers that I can think of are Bronze Age chariot runners and the rather similar use of light infantry to provide close support to cavalry.  These seem to be very particular functions.

Personally I think the more significant issue is with cavalry, who more clearly could be close or loose order, regardless of kit or perceived primary function, save, say, for cataphracts.

[Imperial Dave]

thanks for that David, much food for thought....the cavalry question(s) I have avoided so far as it is more tricky in some respects

[RichT]

What I've more or less decided (nothing earth-shattering) - there are three types of infantry (leaving aside outliers like chariots and elephants):

- those who stand in solid formations and fight the enemy face to face, toe to toe, shield to shield (etc)
- those who throw or shoot stuff, fight in loose and open order, and keep out of the way of the enemy
- those who either (if they have no missiles) run in and out of contact, or if they have missiles, use them but might also run in and out of contact

People would tend to use weapons and armour suited to their role (but weapons and armour don't define the role). People fighting face to face might cluster closer together (but order and intervals don't define the role).

[Erpingham]

the cavalry question(s) I have avoided so far as it is more tricky in some respects

We did the types of cavalry question quite recently, I recall.

[Imperial Dave]

thats pretty straight forward enough Rich. I am going to have to go away and think through a few permutations for my rules certainly as I want to include these elements in the functionality of infantry whilst being able to represent them on the table top with relative ease

[Imperial Dave]

the cavalry question(s) I have avoided so far as it is more tricky in some respects

We did the types of cavalry question quite recently, I recall.

I have the memory of a goldfish so will demure on this point 

[Erpingham]

the cavalry question(s) I have avoided so far as it is more tricky in some respects

We did the types of cavalry question quite recently, I recall.

I have the memory of a goldfish so will demure on this point 

http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=6523.0 Ring any bells?