Light or skirmish infantry

[Imperial Dave]

oh yes.....ages ago 

[dwkay57]

Given your rules are for a very specific time period and geographical region, I don't think you need to worry about broad or generic terms or definitions or trying to be too inclusive, as modern terminology goes.

You need classifications and types that fit the style of fighting in Dark Ages Britain. So what the Greeks may or may not have done isn't applicable.

The wider the period of your rules then the more classifications / fighting styles / morale / weapons skill combinations  are probably needed to reflect the diversity of the armies.

How the rule writer combines a fighting style (e.g. skirmishing) with representation of model figures and base sizes is up to the author.

[Imperial Dave]

Thanks David, that has somewhat helped to stop my mind freewheeling into a multitude of angles to check and conform to stereotypes. I really need to sit down with a strong (Klatchian) coffee and give myself a good talking to. Revisiting my rules, I fear I may have to start again but I have a few extra nuggets thus far.

for DA battles I think less is more in terms of troop types so I am minded to stick with heavy and light for all infantry

[Erpingham]

You need classifications and types that fit the style of fighting in Dark Ages Britain. So what the Greeks may or may not have done isn't applicable.

The problem Dave, or anybody else, has is we don't have much information about what combat was like in Early Medieval/Dark Age Britain. Did dedicated skirmishers exist?  Was there any organised skirmishing at all?  If Dave wants to put these in his rules, he will need to borrow a model from another time.

[Anton]

Gildas says that the Romans left military manuals to enable the Britons to defend themselves.  I'd guess this included how to use light infantry.

I'd say raiding requires men acting as light infantry.

The poor might well self define as light infantry by virtue of lack of kit.  Although a spear and shield will do for close order fighting.

Young fellows have the speed and stamina required for light infantry and also maybe the recklessness.

Boys learned their military skills at home. Home could be Court, fosterers or parents. Hunting seems to have helped. The amount of time spent learning seems dependent on social class.

We have pretty much a blank canvas for the period.  We know there was close fighting and we know there was raiding.

[Imperial Dave]

Thanks for that Stephen. I do suspect that reading was by far the larger of the two especially in the 6th and early 7th centuries

[Anton]

I think the one led to the other.

A raid might be to take loot and slaves and or to drive out the target population.  I imagine opportunistic raiding and systematic raiding.  The latter being a serious threat.

If we think of a typical polity as being like the layers of an onion.  At the centre there is the king.  It is his job to step in if foreign aggression proves too much for the local nobles.  Failure to do so costs him military support and revenue producing territory.  If he loses too much the kingdom falls.  In such circumstances I find it easy to imagine such a king launching a major expedition even if the odds were against success.  The expedition likely resulted in battle.

On an tangent. Much was made of 30 men being deemed an army in the Laws of Ine. I think the point here is that if you raised 30 armed men in Wessex without royal sanction you were challenging royal authority.  The law then was about domestic stability in Wessex rather than an indication of what constituted a viable army.

[dwkay57]

I suppose the other aspect to consider is what you define as skirmishing?

Is it a small fight with a few individuals involved, shooting or throwing things at a distance, or Hollywood style individual fencing in a dispersed manner (as opposed to concerted close order slog)?

In a large battle, it could be argued that troops that weren't in close order could do all of the above.

[Imperial Dave]

yes, tactical vs strategic battle size does alter the parameters somewhat

[Erpingham]

Once again, we are back to basic parameters.  I think the conversation has shown most folks would distinguish between a skirmisher (a function) and light infantry (more a general term for the lightly equipped).  Stephen reminds us that a lot of warfare was small scale and David that small scale fights may be more individual and loose than a formal battle.  So Dave perhaps needs to define what scale of fight he is interested in and consider what would be the appropriate way of handling skirmishing within it, to tighten the focus.

[Imperial Dave]

Yes. And therein lies part of the problem. I want to model both but suspect a more generic approach is going to be the best for me personally

[dwkay57]

Yes, defining the abstraction level (i.e. real men to figures ratio) and also the ground scale (even to an approximation) as a first step would be useful, as you can then "model" how skirmishing troops would behave and can be represented at that level.

Mine are 1:50 with a hex being about 1/4 mile. So light troops (e.g. infantry in dispersed order) in groups of 100 men (2 figures on a base) can operate in the vicinity of their parent body (the next hex) and skirmish with approaching enemy. When battle closes and real melee starts they usually fall back behind their main body and provide support by skirmishing again. In each case skirmishing is a mix of throwing or shooting pointed sticks plus an occasional close and swing and then fall back.

Open order infantry have to stay in the same hex as their colleagues, but some are assumed to move forward to skirmish with nearby enemy before they drop back to join the battle line. So they aren't as effective at longer range shooting as their dispersed foot friends but more powerful in the real fight.

[Mark G]

At that scale, I very much doubt you would see any skirmishing, and almost no missile fire either.

A quarter mile is a lot of ground to run up and back in, and even good quality bows are pretty ineffective further than that

[Imperial Dave]

I have played around with doing that for squares

[dwkay57]

Yes a 1/4 mile is a long distance Mark. My missile ranges used to be even longer!

My assumption is that the troops could be anywhere within that hex and if in dispersed order (or skirmishing) some may be moving into the next hex and then falling back. The effect of skirmishing, in terms of casualties from infantry, is pretty minimal.