I've long been interested in how "facts" embed themselves in the popular understanding of topics, especially history. This topic was inspired by a comment elsewhere on the forum about the "mythical" coffin shield of the Goths. This is a sort of wargamer one especially because it features in lots of figure ranges, rather than a common misunderstanding. Others are long debunked but still are often "corrected" in popular reports (No, Vikings didn't have horned helmets, nor were knights routinely lowered into their saddles by cranes). Some are still fighting their way out of more formal history into popular history and some are a point of debate where the popular interpretation is being challenged. Now, I'm the sort of person who would buy a book on "Historical misconceptions and their origins" so, I wondered, are there any out there which are personal favourites? They could be popular history, they could be wargamer specials. They do have to have some degree of common acceptance, so "KTB wedges" and "WMWW" are disqualified :)
Chained troops was one of my favourites. Or the Sasanian bubble hat.
Confusion between Mongols and Huns was sadly common.
Within the wider population I suspect the incidence of fire arrows or engines shooting fireballs is greatly overestimated thanks to films like Gladiator.
As to coffin shields and the like, the accuracy of figures has improved greatly in line with updates to canonical sources (i.e. WRG Armies and Enemies books for the most part - not a criticism of the earlier volumes as they filled a void at a time when information was as scarce as rocking horse droppings) and in 15mm there must be few European or Near Eastern armies that cannot be built accurately nowadays with Far Eastern armies catching up fast (nobody uses Greer as a guide nowadays, thankfully). And there are also some very good American ranges, though less popular because those armies are distinctly underpowered compared with contemporary old world opponents. Sasanian globe hats still occur, admittedly, but the relevant WRG book is the oldest, I believe, and Phil Barker hates Sassanids anyway ;)
Cheers
Mick
Servile rowing gangs in galleys. (Even in the Renaissance, when it was a genuine thing, it was very far from being a universal thing; and whilst on the subject of Renaissance naval warfare, English culverins outranging Spanish cannons because of their longer barrels...)
In fact, most depictions of ancient slavery, though F Howerd Esq is completely excused for the wonderful Lurkio.
You could include popular misconceptions such as that all Romans always wore lorica segmentata and carried semi-cylindrical shields. A number of popular culture concepts of the ancient world could fall into this category:
- New Kingdom Ptolemaics (as in Total War or Cleopatra)
- Loincloth wearing Spartans (300)
- Leather armour (and especially vambraces) on everyone (sword and sandal imagery generally - of course leather armour might have been more common than we might think)
- Flaming weapons in ancient warfare (every ancient world film ever made)
Or you could have specialist misconceptions where it's still a matter of debate if they are really mis- (though I'm sure they are):
- Macedonian phalangites all carried a small shield called a pelta (and its more extreme cousin, which still gets trotted out on occasion, that this shield was carried on the back)
- Greek hoplites were so heavily burdened (by their shields especially) that they couldn't fight
- Persian armies were all about archery and flanking attacks by cavalry
The chequerboard is my all-time favourite - but that is wandering into dangerous territory. Here are some safer ones:
- Throughout its 1000-year history as a republic and Empire, Rome's legionaries used rectangular shields.
- Roman legionaries always formed a tortoise in every battle. Regardless of circumstances.
- All heavy infantry in every epoch fought like WWE wrestlers. As a corollary to this the notion that sword-armed infantry indulged in fencing.
- All formations dissolved into a chaotic free-for-all at the moment of contact with the enemy.
- Infantry frequently wore a harness made of leather straps to impress their enemies with their manliness.
- Cavalry would charge into a group of heavy infantry and then stop and fight them in a static melee.
- Cavalry in a long-distance pursuit of an enemy traveled at full gallop.
QuoteLeather armour (and especially vambraces) on everyone (sword and sandal imagery generally - of course leather armour might have been more common than we might think)
I was thinking of choosing this. There is a particular style of leather armour commonplace in certain films - often like lorica segmentata but polished leather - which is a popular conception. And that muscled cuirasses worn by officers were leather and not metal.
What makes it fun is your second bit - we don't actually know how common leather armour was, so we can't "prove" its wrong.
I also recall (I think this is a wargamer one) that all Roman legions from the 4th century onwards wore rawhide armour, according to what Mick calls "canonical" sources. This led to all late Roman figure ranges depicting such armour.
Quote from: RichT on April 13, 2021, 04:55:49 PM
- Leather armour (and especially vambraces) on everyone (sword and sandal imagery generally - of course leather armour might have been more common than we might think)
I used them in re-enacting....very very effective
Achilles sacrificing Trojan prisoners in the Etruscan "Francois Tomb" (https://variasanotaciones.blogspot.com/2015/07/greek-etruscan-roman-sacrifices-of-war.html) - is this where all those vambraces came from?
One which annoyed me the other week - and for which I place the blame squarely on you Englishmen - is the idea that longbows rendered armoured cavalry obsolete.
Perhaps not a misconception, exactly, but one wargamerism that keeps annoying me is the usage of "Renaissance" to mean roughly AD 1500-1700.
Representations of Cleopatra.
walk like an Egyptian......
Disciplined troops draw up in regular formations and on the order to advance on the enemy, break into an undisciplined 1/2 mile run to smash into said enemy, meeting in the middle of the battlefield.
All battles are fought in the middle of dense woodland.
Super troops (in our period)
Samurai - the only time they ventured oversees into Korea they were singularly unsuccessful
English Longbowmen - equipped with automatic weapons that mowed down the opposition in droves
Classical Indian 'Long'bowmen - see above
Quote from: Dave Knight on April 13, 2021, 10:30:17 PM
Super troops (in our period)
Spartans - super disciplined super invincible super warriors.
QuoteEnglish Longbowmen - equipped with automatic weapons that mowed down the opposition in droves
You could produce an entire book with longbow misconceptions. They vary from the "folk history" style ones (longbows were made out of yew trees grown in churchyards), through the disputed (they were effective against armoured targets more than 30 yards away, longbowmen were commanded by master bowmen and resupplied in the field by relays of ammunition-carrying boys) to the fanboy (longbowmen could hit with every arrow, which they shot at 15 arrows a minute from 160lb bows and could do this for hours).
Romans, chariots. Out of period, roundhead and cavaliers, Waterloo. Etc.
Elephants getting slaughtered on the battlefield by arrows, javelins, whatever.
One of my favourites:
In order to become a Knight, one needs to be lobotomised so that you do not notice what a bad idea it is to charge that shieldwall of steady spearmen or chase those pesky light cavalry until you are miles away from your friends and twenty times as many LC converge upon you.
close order infantry men mown down by cavalry wielding butter knives......
Quote from: Holly on April 14, 2021, 01:41:23 PM
close order infantry men mown down by cavalry wielding butter knives......
Back in the day, before WRG army books, Huns were often shown armed with large butter knives. Such a weapon has often seemed to me somewhat awkward for a cavalryman to use.
Two opposing forces fighting to the death, with one side deciding it might be an idea to cut and run only after 90% of their formation are corpses.
Thought of another super unit
Palestinian clubmen ;D
I can't remember which WRG list they were in - one of the Roman ones I think - but they were probably a lot more effective on the table than their 1:1 scale counterparts Palestine
Quote from: Dave Knight on April 17, 2021, 02:32:00 PM
Thought of another super unit
Palestinian clubmen ;D
These may be a special category of wargamer misconception (I doubt if the general public have any conception of them, mis- or otherwise). In this case, I suspect that people have knowingly elevated a rarity into a commonplace, because a quirk of the rules made them a must have troop type.
Quote from: Dave Knight on April 17, 2021, 02:32:00 PM
Thought of another super unit
Palestinian clubmen ;D
I can't remember which WRG list they were in - one of the Roman ones I think - but they were probably a lot more effective on the table than their 1:1 scale counterparts Palestine
They were, and are, in the Middle Imperial list. Turns out that there are several references to Romans using large clubs very effectively to fight cataphracts, but the "Palestinian" bit may have been a red herring.
Quote from: Duncan Head on April 17, 2021, 05:36:10 PM
Quote from: Dave Knight on April 17, 2021, 02:32:00 PM
Thought of another super unit
Palestinian clubmen ;D
I can't remember which WRG list they were in - one of the Roman ones I think - but they were probably a lot more effective on the table than their 1:1 scale counterparts Palestine
They were, and are, in the Middle Imperial list. Turns out that there are several references to Romans using large clubs very effectively to fight cataphracts, but the "Palestinian" bit may have been a red herring.
IIRC it turned out that those "clubmen" were actually described as "the troops from Palestine" (or something close) as opposed to being Palestinians per se, and so most likely just Roman troops with an anti-catafract tactic. The tactic was used by Constantine I and Constantius II later as well, but the latter's use is, I believe, the last recorded use.
incendiary pigs!
Quote from: Holly on April 17, 2021, 08:05:48 PM
incendiary pigs!
Not a misconception.
Quote from: Polyainos 4.6.3At the siege of Megara, Antigonus (Gonatas) brought his elephants into the attack; but the Megarians daubed some swine with pitch, set fire to it, and let them loose among the elephants. The pigs grunted and shrieked under the torture of the fire, and sprang forwards as hard as they could among the elephants, who broke their ranks in confusion and fright, and ran off in different directions.
Quote from: Duncan Head on April 17, 2021, 09:09:54 PM
Quote from: Holly on April 17, 2021, 08:05:48 PM
incendiary pigs!
Not a misconception.
Quote from: Polyainos 4.6.3At the siege of Megara, Antigonus (Gonatas) brought his elephants into the attack; but the Megarians daubed some swine with pitch, set fire to it, and let them loose among the elephants. The pigs grunted and shrieked under the torture of the fire, and sprang forwards as hard as they could among the elephants, who broke their ranks in confusion and fright, and ran off in different directions.
oh yes I know the reference its just the amount of times I faced them in WRG 6th games....an inexhaustible procession of smoky bacon ::)
I must confess - I did struggle to figure out how multi-armed and well-armoured cataphracts couldn't just kill the blokes armed with big clumsy clubs.
Quote from: DougM on April 17, 2021, 11:22:02 PM
I must confess - I did struggle to figure out how multi-armed and well-armoured cataphracts couldn't just kill the blokes armed with big clumsy clubs.
its a wargaming equivalent of whack-a-mole :P
I think Nik has a good explanation. These were not specialised units raised to serve with big sticks but big sticks were issued to soldiers as a special tactic. So, perhaps pay the points and get a +1 if you meet cataphracts. I believe their popularity came because they were assumed to belong to a much sought after class 2HCW which had generally good close combat power, not just against cataphracts.
Warband are a troop type - and are incapable of formation, prolonged melee, discipline, control and never wear armour.
Only warband can make a ferocious charge.
Light heavies. (Just full stop).
Roman auxiliaries are somehow different from legionaries .
Skirmishers being defeated somehow matters to the army being prepared to fight.
Men will break formation to nip between enemy formations which therefore necessitates every man to form a single line and every unit to line up exactly opposite their opponents.
Cavalry fight perfectly well statically from horseback.
Light cavalry are only ever evading missile troops and will never engage in melee.
Formations can wheel and move with ease on a battlefield.
Horsemen can break formation to change direction and then reform again with ease.
Electing to fight inside disordering terrain is a sensible and common thing.
Quote from: Mark G on April 18, 2021, 09:32:35 AM
Warband are a troop type - and are incapable of formation, prolonged melee, discipline, control and never wear armour.
Only warband can make a ferocious charge.
Light heavies. (Just full stop).
Roman auxiliaries are somehow different from legionaries .
Skirmishers being defeated somehow matters to the army being prepared to fight.
Men will break formation to nip between enemy formations which therefore necessitates every man to form a single line and every unit to line up exactly opposite their opponents.
Cavalry fight perfectly well statically from horseback.
Light cavalry are only ever evading missile troops and will never engage in melee.
Formations can wheel and move with ease on a battlefield.
Horsemen can break formation to change direction and then reform again with ease.
Electing to fight inside disordering terrain is a sensible and common thing.
good list!
it is a good list and the last point emphasises how the loss of unit command and control was absolutely crucial to unit performance.
Once this was lost units would come apart.
Same for men nipping down into the gaps between enemy units. If a unit cannot make the move together, individuals will not do it. One of the biggest demotivators would be losing the protection if men either side of you .
Roy
so do we 'put up' with these imperfections or misconceptions in the pursuit of playability regardless of how they came about
Mostly we don't get a choice. We get to play what others in our circle play, and the driver for change is usually an early adopter who gets caught by some promotion.
Sadly, the sort of chap who actually motivates to finish and publish a set is not often the sort of chap who steps far enough back to try to work past those misconceptions- if they even recognise them at all
so do 'sons of sons of sons' approach to wargaming rules contribute to this and the continuation of these misconceptions?
Quote from: Holly on April 18, 2021, 08:27:01 PM
so do we 'put up' with these imperfections or misconceptions in the pursuit of playability regardless of how they came about
Absolutely yes. Playability is Goliath and David has lost his sling.
I guess the issue might be that if wargames start being produced that dont allow things such as those listed by Mark there is a risk of a big 'switch off' ?
Just thought of some more misconceptions courtesy of John Curry's talk at the virtual Conference last year.
- Armoured foot move slower than unarmoured foot.
- Ammunition supply is irrelevant to missile troops.
- Enemy behind one's flank is only a minor concern.
8)
Quote from: Holly on April 18, 2021, 08:27:01 PM
so do we 'put up' with these imperfections or misconceptions in the pursuit of playability regardless of how they came about
Why do you feel imperfections or misconceptions are caused by the drive for playability? Or that playability is not a desireable goal for that matter? I recognise many things in that list as hang-overs from WRG and other "tables and tests" rules of that era, where playability wasn't actually a main criterion . The main driver, IIRC, was a drive for "accuracy", which is maybe ironic when talking about a list of misconceptions.
I think, unwittingly, some rules promote clever, niche or unrealistic mechanisms and troop behaviour to get more fun or action or interest into the game. Done for the right reasons obviously
Quote from: Holly on April 19, 2021, 08:55:55 AM
I think, unwittingly, some rules promote clever, niche or unrealistic mechanisms and troop behaviour to get more fun or action or interest into the game. Done for the right reasons obviously
Maybe, but I think the core of many issues is a collective "wargamer history" of ancient combat. We have sort of built our own military history, and it contains some myths and legends. I don't think the term "warband" as a style of fighting is found in "regular" military history, for example.
Quote from: Erpingham on April 19, 2021, 09:12:55 AM
Maybe, but I think the core of many issues is a collective "wargamer history" of ancient combat. We have sort of built our own military history, and it contains some myths and legends. I don't think the term "warband" as a style of fighting is found in "regular" military history, for example.
Fair enough but on the other hand, I think that wargame military history is in some respects better than regular military history (at least for Classical/Hellenistic, where regular military history can be a bit ropey). Identifying which bits are the clear insights, and which are the wargamer myths, is the hard part, of course. 'Light heavies' for example - the classic WRG idea of them may not be quite right, but I think that the category does cover something that really existed, in some form.
I never played the old WRG sets, but didn't LHI officially stand for Loose Heavy Infantry, the idea being they were similarly armoured as proper HI but fought in less densely packed formations? If so, denying that such distinctions existed seems brave given Polybios' famous comparison of legion and phalanx, where he among other things say that the the former had twice the frontage per file.
Of course, it's another question if the right troops got put in the right boxes, and whether the mechanical effects of the classifications were appropriate.
And it's a third question what myths may have been inadvertently spawned in the minds of players insufficiently schooled in Phil-ological exegesis.
LHI stood for Light Heavy Infantry. They were equipped as HI, but in loose order and moved faster. In this they paralleled the relationship between Light Medium Infantry and Medium infantry. just with more armour. While the name is on the surface oxymoronic, it actually indicates consistency in the nomenclature in the rules. This is entirely separate, of course, to whether such troops a) existed or b) troops were correctly classified.
According to WRG 5th which is the oldest I have:
Quote
LHI. Light Heavy Infantry. Men in partial metal or horn armour. Fight in loose formation. Move at jog, charge at run.
As opposed to:
Quote
HI. Heavy Infantry. Men in partial metal or horn armour. Fight in close formation. Move at walk, charge at jog.
and
Quote
LI. Light Infantry. Unarmoured men. Skirmish in dispersed formation. Move at jog, charge at run.
So yes the armour of LHI is the same as HI, but they are in more open order (maybe the L started out as loose?).
The close/loose thing, and especially the walk/jog/run thing, seems to be largely a figment of the Phil-ological imagination, but I agree, that would be a good definition of eg Republican legionaries (though they were in fact classed as HI, IIRC).
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on April 19, 2021, 12:05:54 PM
I never played the old WRG sets, but didn't LHI officially stand for Loose Heavy Infantry, the idea being they were similarly armoured as proper HI but fought in less densely packed formations? If so, denying that such distinctions existed seems brave given Polybios' famous comparison of legion and phalanx, where he among other things say that the the former had twice the frontage per file.
The default frontage for most infantry files seems to have been intermediate order: wide enough so shields just touched or there was a small gap between them. Polybius states that the pike phalanx formed up in close order when confronting legionaries, and close order was unique to it. Indian infantry had a frontage between intermediate and close order. Greek hoplites formed up intermediate, but by the time they reached their opponents they were about as close together as the Indians, +/- 2 feet per file. Then you have Saxon and Viking shieldwalls, probably comparable to the Indians, or maybe, in the case of Hastings, even the close order phalanx. So there are quite a few exceptions to the rule.
Conclusion: you need 3 kinds of HI: Close Order, Loose Order, and Close Loose Order, with perhaps the subdistinctions of Loose Close Loose order for Viking shieldwalls and Close Loose Close order for the shieldwall at Hastings. ;)
QuoteAccording to WRG 5th which is the oldest I have:
They were introduced in 5th IIRC - they weren't in 4th unless they came in as an amendment. I don't think LMI were ever "Loose" medium infantry. I think they reflected the idea of an intermediate between Light (skirmishing) and Medium (close combat) infantry.
agreed...the concept that formations were 'rigid' is also a current misconception for me....
I think one of the challenges, as I've pointed out before, is that wargames rules don't have the luxury afforded to historians of just shrugging and saying 'we don't know'.
At the end of the day there would be an awful lot of gaps in our rulesets.
I do think there are a whole bunch of inherited truths that are wargamers received wisdom, and some of those don't stand up to even casual scrutiny.
One of the questions would be whether wargamers would choose to play a game that didn't adhere to that received wisdom? Given human nature, I suspect not.
true Doug, I used to have endless discussions with players when I presented my own army lists based on research rather than the de facto WRG ones (not in competition scenarios I hasten to add). I would always take people on their merit when they had a divergence and why they thought so etc
In ancients terms, I think we do have a "bubble" of wargamer history because we use source documents like WRG books or Ospreys or rules supplements that academic historians wouldn't use yet probably nor would popular historians. As Richard says, this can actually be freeing to think through things that the other bubbles don't. But some things do exist in our bubble which wouldn't be accepted elsewhere, because a lack of challenge from outside our system. It makes interfaces where interactions can occur that allow new ideas into the bubble to be played around with important. The SoA is one of these but there are various others that people interact with , including some of the rules forums.
From the playability perspective there are some things that are absolutely ahistorical but necessary for gameplay. In free movement systems for example, the ability of a line to wheel to any angle or fraction of an angle is essential, especially when combined with the razorlike precision of the ZOC. Wargaming is all about positional nuances, especially since the vagaries of dice convert combat advantages into an unreliable and blunt instrument at best. I think everyone knew that lines didn't wheel and there's enough evidence that even if a column did wheel, it did so in 90-degree increments only.* Which is fine for a square grid system, but much less fun for everyone else.
*with the probable exception of cavalry wedges
I am going to chuck the grenade in the room and say I dont like ZOCs in general
Quote from: Holly on April 19, 2021, 02:10:41 PM
I am going to chuck the grenade in the room and say I dont like ZOCs in general
I don't like ZOCs in general either. He shouldn't have them - he's just one chap after all. ::)
Justin:
Quote
Historically I think everyone knew that lines didn't wheel and there's enough evidence that even if a column did wheel, it did so in 90-degree increments only.
Not sure if you mean "In the past, everyone knew..", or "Everyone knows that, in the past..." but either way I would have to strenuously disagree, and I believe (without, of course, actual statistical evidence) that you are in a minority of one in believing this.
In writing rules, as Doug says, you both can and must define these things rigidly. "We don't know" won't make for a working set of rules, and the rules writer has to jump to some conclusions (which makes it easier to criticise a set of rules than to do better - though WRG's unfortunate tendency to insist that they were always right makes them even more open to criticism).
Regarding intervals of files - for most of the 4000-odd-year period covered by 'Ancients' we have no idea what, if any, file interval was used. The only definite figures are Hellenistic manuals - which are both applied willy nilly to all sorts of inappropriate forces, and at the same time largely ignored in what they actually say* - the Indian data, and 5th C (AD) Roman. Everything else - Greek hoplites, Roman legions, Persians, Assyrians, Egyptians, 'warbands', shieldwalls - is just a guess (a perfectly plausible guess, no doubt, but a guess all the same).
* Hellenistic manuals clearly say that there was no one fixed interval - different intervals were adopted for different purposes.
Holly:
Quote
I am going to chuck the grenade in the room and say I dont like ZOCs in general
Kaboom! Nothing wrong with not liking ZOCs. They have two functions, broadly (and thinking a bit more of their boardgame than their miniatures game incarnations). They allow a single counter, base, stand or unit to represent a larger but more dispersed force (holding a larger section of line, say, than they are physically capable of on the game table, thus representing degrees of concentration and dispersion. And they remove some of the artificiality of alternating turns, by exerting influence even when it is not their turn. I think ZOCs are a perfeclty good mechanism, but they aren't essential.
QuoteI am going to chuck the grenade in the room and say I dont like ZOCs in general
Perhaps we need a new topic "10 things I hate about rules" as these don't seem to be misconceptions per se. Unless we say that ZoC is an abstraction of a misconception about how units behaved in close proximity to the enemy?
I think there are a lot of aspects to ancients rules that could usefully be re-examined to see if the assumptions still hold up. I don't mind ZOC or whatever name you give them, because I think they represent a fundamental principle in Warfare. You don't faff around in reach of the enemy.
I have no evidence as to whether troops could wheel or not, but as it's something you can teach folk to do in an hour or so, I don't see why not. Personally there are other things I would explore, like certainty.. three moves to reach there so the enemy can't intervene. Tiredness, we've been stood to for hours, and even things like animosity, particular grudge matches for ferocity of aggression.
@Anthony, Richard:
Thanks for setting me straight re LHI. I wonder where I got the L = Loose from, then.
Anyway, do the rules specify file frontages for close and loose order? Going by the basing, I'm guessing loose frontages are only 1/3 bigger, far less then the difference Polybios reports 'tween legion and phalanx?
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on April 19, 2021, 03:56:12 PM
@Anthony, Richard:
Thanks for setting me straight re LHI. I wonder where I got the L = Loose from, then.
Anyway, do the rules specify file frontages for close and loose order? Going by the basing, I'm guessing loose frontages are only 1/3 bigger, far less then the difference Polybios reports 'tween legion and phalanx?
It's slightly awkward. One foot figure on its standard base represents a group 5 men wide, four men deep. The ground scale for 25mm is 1 inch = 20 paces with each pace being 2.5 ft. Unfortunately, base sizes are in millimetres. Assuming 1 inch = 25mm, 1 mm is 2 ft. Frontage of a close order figure is therefore 30 ft, divided by 5 gives 6ft per man. A loose order figure has 40 ft divided by 5 which is 8ft per man. I think the frontages are based on the number of figures yoou can get on a close order base, more than reality, though.
Quote from: Erpingham on April 19, 2021, 04:16:51 PM
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on April 19, 2021, 03:56:12 PM
@Anthony, Richard:
Thanks for setting me straight re LHI. I wonder where I got the L = Loose from, then.
Anyway, do the rules specify file frontages for close and loose order? Going by the basing, I'm guessing loose frontages are only 1/3 bigger, far less then the difference Polybios reports 'tween legion and phalanx?
It's slightly awkward. One foot figure on its standard base represents a group 5 men wide, four men deep. The ground scale for 25mm is 1 inch = 20 paces with each pace being 2.5 ft. Unfortunately, base sizes are in millimetres. Assuming 1 inch = 25mm, 1 mm is 2 ft. Frontage of a close order figure is therefore 30 ft, divided by 5 gives 6ft per man. A loose order figure has 40 ft divided by 8 which is 8ft per man. I think the frontages are based on the number of figures yoou can get on a close order base, more than reality, though.
Why are you making it hard for yourself working in feet and inches?
(Cross posted - Anthony, in 25mm (figure scale) 1 inch is 10 paces, so your figures are double. Yes, mixing units like they do is bonkers)
I don't think they specify in so many words, but as you say the scales imply about 1 metre per man for HI, and about 1.3 for LHI. Incidentally looking at my copy of WRG 5th (for the first time in 30 odd years) is quite fun. The ground scale is given as one inch = ten paces, and the pace as 2.5 feet or 0.75 metres. A figure represents 20 men, 5 files wide by 4 ranks deep. HI bases are 15mm per figure (inches, mm, paces, make your minds up!), and LHI are 20mm ("The following frontages per figure or model must be rigidly kept to", the rules say, helpfully). So HI are 3 mm per man, and LHI are 4 mm per man (while LI are 6 mm per man). As 1 mm = 0.393701 paces = 0.29527575 metres, HI are on a 0.88582725 metre frontage, LHI on 1.181103 metres, and LI on 1.7716545. To be more precise.
These figures don't relate precisely to anything in the real world of course, and the intermediate LHI frontage is (AFAIK) completely imaginary (but can be taken perhaps to abstractly represent infantry who move between close and open order). The tacticians specify 2 cubits (approx 1 metre) close order and 4 cubits (approx 2 metres) open order (both for heavy infantry), and one cubit for 'locked shields'.
Following Polybius, Macedonians should be on 15 mm frontage and Romans on 30 mm, or if you subscribe to the theory of a standard one cubit interval for the phalanx, Macedonians should be on 7.5 mm (which would require a very skinny toy soldier) and Romans on 15 mm. Which just goes to show I think that it's best not to try to model these things too literally.
Quote from: DougM on April 19, 2021, 04:19:20 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on April 19, 2021, 04:16:51 PM
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on April 19, 2021, 03:56:12 PM
@Anthony, Richard:
Thanks for setting me straight re LHI. I wonder where I got the L = Loose from, then.
Anyway, do the rules specify file frontages for close and loose order? Going by the basing, I'm guessing loose frontages are only 1/3 bigger, far less then the difference Polybios reports 'tween legion and phalanx?
It's slightly awkward. One foot figure on its standard base represents a group 5 men wide, four men deep. The ground scale for 25mm is 1 inch = 20 paces with each pace being 2.5 ft. Unfortunately, base sizes are in millimetres. Assuming 1 inch = 25mm, 1 mm is 2 ft. Frontage of a close order figure is therefore 30 ft, divided by 5 gives 6ft per man. A loose order figure has 40 ft divided by 8 which is 8ft per man. I think the frontages are based on the number of figures yoou can get on a close order base, more than reality, though.
Why are you making it hard for yourself working in feet and inches?
I'm trying to work it back as it would have been done. It does have a metric equivalent pace of 0.75 m, so 1 inch is 15m. 1 mm is therefore 3/5 m. 0.6 x 15 ÷5 = 1.8 m per man frontage. Frankly, to me, that was a harder calculation and, given the rather more elegant way it turns out in ft., I suspect that's the way the original was done.
Quote(Cross posted - Anthony, in 25mm (figure scale) 1 inch is 10 paces, so your figures are double. Yes, mixing units like they do is bonkers)
Yes, I've used the 15mm ground scale and the 25mm base scale. How embarassing :-[
Quote from: RichT on April 19, 2021, 02:43:10 PM
Justin:
Quote
Historically I think everyone knew that lines didn't wheel and there's enough evidence that even if a column did wheel, it did so in 90-degree increments only.
Not sure if you mean "In the past, everyone knew..", or "Everyone knows that, in the past..." but either way I would have to strenuously disagree, and I believe (without, of course, actual statistical evidence) that you are in a minority of one in believing this.
Fair enough. I have this idea in the back of my head that the earliest source evidence for a line wheeling was Wellington's infantry but can't confirm it. There isn't anything in the sources that affirms lines
didn't wheel; it just seems painfully obviously to me that they couldn't, certainly not undrilled types like tribal warriors. The manuals affirm that wheeling was done by a subunit - the square-shaped syntagma - and that it was done in increments of 90 degrees. I'm not aware of any example of a line as a whole ever executing a wheel and certainly not a 22 or 37 degree wheel. Opposing armies formed up parallel to each other and interacted as if they were tied to a square grid, going for front, flanks and rear. In cases where their shapes were more fluid, e.g. an ambush of a column, there was no question of wheeling or performing any other formation manoeuvre - just groups of men fighting each other.
This is different from men forming a line in the first place, where one man would establish the corner position and the rest of the men would fall into line next to him. My own take (for what it is or isn't worth) is that they used the enemy to orientate themselves, i.e. decide the angle of the line. It might be slightly out of true but that would matter once battle was joined.
"Minority of one" - it would be interesting to see how many believe
all infantry in line could wheel in battlefield conditions, only drilled infantry in line could wheel, or nobody could wheel.
Quote from: RichT on April 19, 2021, 02:43:10 PMRegarding intervals of files - for most of the 4000-odd-year period covered by 'Ancients' we have no idea what, if any, file interval was used. The only definite figures are Hellenistic manuals - which are both applied willy nilly to all sorts of inappropriate forces, and at the same time largely ignored in what they actually say* - the Indian data, and 5th C (AD) Roman. Everything else - Greek hoplites, Roman legions, Persians, Assyrians, Egyptians, 'warbands', shieldwalls - is just a guess (a perfectly plausible guess, no doubt, but a guess all the same).
* Hellenistic manuals clearly say that there was no one fixed interval - different intervals were adopted for different purposes.
The manuals are the only sources we have for file intervals, and they affirm there were three of them: open order with 2 yards (4 cubits) per file, intermediate order with 1 yard (2 cubits) and close order with 1/2 a yard (1 cubit). These intervals correspond to something real: the first allows for file insertion/interjection, the second gives an infantryman maximum fighting space without exposing his flanks, and the third puts pikemen together as closely as possible whilst still giving them enough leeway to fight - as pikemen. Obviously the intervals are going to vary a bit from one unit to another, but not by much.
Greek hoplites formed up with shield edges touching, which means an average of about 3 feet per file = intermediate order. They contracted when advancing so shields overlapped. This contraction had a natural limit of about 2 feet as shields could not overlap any further than that. Legionaries needed a little space between shields as their fighting style required stabbing their sword past the side of the shield as well as over and under it, so about 3 feet = intermediate order. Persians - depends on the width of their shields as they formed a continuous wall with them, so OK, no idea (how wide were their shields?). Assyrians and Egyptians ditto. We know the width of a Saxon or Viking shield so I imagine we can calculate the width of a file in shieldwall formation pretty closely. Hastings has further clues - the men were jammed together so closely the dead could not fall. That looks pretty much like close formation to me.
QuoteThe manuals affirm that wheeling was done by a subunit - the square-shaped syntagma - and that it was done in increments of 90 degrees. I'm not aware of any example of a line as a whole ever executing a wheel
I'm sure we've been here before but isn't this a straw man argument? When large forces wheeled they did so by smaller sub units, so saying they didn't wheel because they only wheeled by sub-units doesn't make much sense to me . Perhaps it does to others?
On angles, a unit that can wheel through 90 degrees can wheel through 45 or anything else its officers decide. Wheeling a line by sub-units (companies. squadrons, whatever) is quicker if you don't have to pretend you are on a grid, because you can cut corners. Your officers do need to know where they are aiming to end up though - doing it grid like might be better for inexperienced forces or troops trying to align with another troop type - don't know.
As to frontages outside classical period there are quite few hints for infantry. A Byzantine infantry unit in normal order touched shield edges. Closed up in defence, they overlapped shields to the boss. Northern European shieldwalls seem to have been similar - touching shields to move, overlapped shields in defence. This suggests similar spacing to hoplites (not through any deliberate study but just the similarity in sizes of humans and hence shields).
We have been here before (on wheeling and intervals) with the same result.
Concerning intervals - my point is that the only actual evidence we have is what I listed (unless anyone is able to add more) - Hellenistic tacticians, Vegetius, that Indian example. The Hellenistic tacticians are evidence for the intervals of the Hellenistic phalanx (and perhaps contemporary lighter infantry), only. We can make intelligent guesses about others (eg based on shield sizes in Byzantine case). We have no data whatever for Greek hoplites, just guesses based on size of shield, but no evidence for how close together shields needed to be - touching is another guess - a correct guess very likely, but a guess is not evidence.
Concerning wheeling - previous long thread said it all, I think. But the proof of a theory is in its ability to convince others. If others are convinced by the 90 degrees only theory, then it may have some merit.
I think it only muddies the waters to talk about drilled and undrilled units - we are obviously thinking primarily of drilled in this context.
Quote from: Erpingham on April 19, 2021, 02:44:10 PM
QuoteI am going to chuck the grenade in the room and say I dont like ZOCs in general
Perhaps we need a new topic "10 things I hate about rules" as these don't seem to be misconceptions per se. Unless we say that ZoC is an abstraction of a misconception about how units behaved in close proximity to the enemy?
that's what I meant Anthony sorry. ZOC's to me give artificial 'control' over other units with an invisible but tangible force emanating from each unit
Quote from: Erpingham on April 19, 2021, 06:11:37 PM
QuoteThe manuals affirm that wheeling was done by a subunit - the square-shaped syntagma - and that it was done in increments of 90 degrees. I'm not aware of any example of a line as a whole ever executing a wheel
I'm sure we've been here before but isn't this a straw man argument? When large forces wheeled they did so by smaller sub units, so saying they didn't wheel because they only wheeled by sub-units doesn't make much sense to me . Perhaps it does to others?
I've been wondering if infantry in line ever wheeled by subunits at all. The evidence for infantry changing facing during a battle - Cynoscephalae, Cannae, Ilipa, etc., all makes sense as infantry in line turning into column (all subunits wheel right or left simultaneously) and then the column marching to a new position before turning back into line again. Is there
any clear evidence anywhere of a line wheeling as a line, even by subunit?
Quote from: Erpingham on April 19, 2021, 06:11:37 PMOn angles, a unit that can wheel through 90 degrees can wheel through 45 or anything else its officers decide. Wheeling a line by sub-units (companies. squadrons, whatever) is quicker if you don't have to pretend you are on a grid, because you can cut corners. Your officers do need to know where they are aiming to end up though - doing it grid like might be better for inexperienced forces or troops trying to align with another troop type - don't know.
I think one can make good use of Occam's Razor here (sorry Rich!). The manuals describe wheeling in 90 degree increments: specifically, 90 degrees, 180 degrees, 270 degrees. They don't mention any other angles. There is no benefit gained from one line attacking another line at an angle and the sources AFAIK don't mention any such angled engagements. Thus there is no need to suppose wheeling in any more refined angles. I would posit that wheeling to a specific angle was a manoeuvre that had to be practised until it was mastered, and any different angle would also have to be practised (the men would have to be familiar with the angle they were to wheel to), so a company commander couldn't just decide: "Mmmmh...ZOC works better if I wheel to 23...no, 27 degrees...think I'll do that" and the men will know what they're supposed to do. Plus the fact that wheeling to different angle would need different signals and it would be easy to mistake one signal for another in the confusion of battle if there were too many kinds of signal.
BTW do I need to defend the proposition that tribal warriors, who had no drill experience whatsoever, could not wheel to angles of 33 degrees, 57 degrees, etc., especially if in line?
Quote from: Erpingham on April 19, 2021, 06:11:37 PMAs to frontages outside classical period there are quite few hints for infantry. A Byzantine infantry unit in normal order touched shield edges. Closed up in defence, they overlapped shields to the boss. Northern European shieldwalls seem to have been similar - touching shields to move, overlapped shields in defence. This suggests similar spacing to hoplites (not through any deliberate study but just the similarity in sizes of humans and hence shields).
Touching shields is a natural way of establishing a file interval that is practical. Nearly shoulder to shoulder is another natural spacing. Open order is, according to Asklepiodotus, another natural spacing (he doesn't give it a name). I have evidence that a group of people naturally tend to keep the equivalent of about 2 cubits apart. I'll dig it up if anyone's interested.
QuoteI think one can make good use of Occam's Razor here (sorry Rich!). The manuals describe wheeling in 90 degree increments: specifically, 90 degrees, 180 degrees, 270 degrees. They don't mention any other angles. There is no benefit gained from one line attacking another line at an angle and the sources AFAIK don't mention any such angled engagements. Thus there is no need to suppose wheeling in any more refined angles. I would posit that wheeling to a specific angle was a manoeuvre that had to be practised until it was mastered, and any different angle would also have to be practised (the men would have to be familiar with the angle they were to wheel to), so a company commander couldn't just decide: "Mmmmh...ZOC works better if I wheel to 23...no, 27 degrees...think I'll do that" and the men will know what they're supposed to do. Plus the fact that wheeling to different angle would need different signals and it would be easy to mistake one signal for another in the confusion of battle if there were too many kinds of signal.
Sorry - this is just so removed from real life it's hilarious. The world is not a grid, the enemy may be approaching you from any angle. The idea of only wheeling in 90 degree segments is nonsense.
Secondly, I've taught small formations to wheel properly by changing pace, it took about an hour before they could do it reliably. In larger formations, I would use a marker and have the line reform by sub units wheeling. I've done that with companies in a battalion.
To suggest that ancient troops would be unable to wheel strikes me as incredibly arrogant. It's a pretty basic component of forming a line or advancing. Now whether there are easier ways to change facing would depend on the troops, their familiarity with each other, the length of line etc. And that is worth debating, but blanket saying they didn't or couldn't is leading us down a whole set of blind alley assumptions for which we have no evidence.
Quote from: DougM on April 20, 2021, 07:33:45 AM
QuoteI think one can make good use of Occam's Razor here (sorry Rich!). The manuals describe wheeling in 90 degree increments: specifically, 90 degrees, 180 degrees, 270 degrees. They don't mention any other angles. There is no benefit gained from one line attacking another line at an angle and the sources AFAIK don't mention any such angled engagements. Thus there is no need to suppose wheeling in any more refined angles. I would posit that wheeling to a specific angle was a manoeuvre that had to be practised until it was mastered, and any different angle would also have to be practised (the men would have to be familiar with the angle they were to wheel to), so a company commander couldn't just decide: "Mmmmh...ZOC works better if I wheel to 23...no, 27 degrees...think I'll do that" and the men will know what they're supposed to do. Plus the fact that wheeling to different angle would need different signals and it would be easy to mistake one signal for another in the confusion of battle if there were too many kinds of signal.
Sorry - this is just so removed from real life it's hilarious. The world is not a grid, the enemy may be approaching you from any angle. The idea of only wheeling in 90 degree segments is nonsense.
Secondly, I've taught small formations to wheel properly by changing pace, it took about an hour before they could do it reliably. In larger formations, I would use a marker and have the line reform by sub units wheeling. I've done that with companies in a battalion.
To suggest that ancient troops would be unable to wheel strikes me as incredibly arrogant. It's a pretty basic component of forming a line or advancing. Now whether there are easier ways to change facing would depend on the troops, their familiarity with each other, the length of line etc. And that is worth debating, but blanket saying they didn't or couldn't is leading us down a whole set of blind alley assumptions for which we have no evidence.
Have you ever wheeled a line of infantry 1 - 1,5km long under battlefield conditions? We need to keep in mind that real life in this instance wasn't a parade ground. How wide is a battalion in line? My position is that infantry could and did wheel by subunit into and out of column on the battlefield as that was quick and easy and a column had little trouble marching to a different position and wheeling to a new orientation as well. I'd be interested in understanding what is incredibly arrogant about that.
Re the 90 degree thing, I would like to see some evidence that enemy lines didn't form up parallel to each other, i.e. that one line was at an angle to the other. One instance will suffice. I would also like to see evidence that attacking an enemy line at an angle did anything else except disorder your own line. Again, once instance will suffice.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 20, 2021, 08:13:00 AM
Quote from: DougM on April 20, 2021, 07:33:45 AM
QuoteI think one can make good use of Occam's Razor here (sorry Rich!). The manuals describe wheeling in 90 degree increments: specifically, 90 degrees, 180 degrees, 270 degrees. They don't mention any other angles. There is no benefit gained from one line attacking another line at an angle and the sources AFAIK don't mention any such angled engagements. Thus there is no need to suppose wheeling in any more refined angles. I would posit that wheeling to a specific angle was a manoeuvre that had to be practised until it was mastered, and any different angle would also have to be practised (the men would have to be familiar with the angle they were to wheel to), so a company commander couldn't just decide: "Mmmmh...ZOC works better if I wheel to 23...no, 27 degrees...think I'll do that" and the men will know what they're supposed to do. Plus the fact that wheeling to different angle would need different signals and it would be easy to mistake one signal for another in the confusion of battle if there were too many kinds of signal.
Sorry - this is just so removed from real life it's hilarious. The world is not a grid, the enemy may be approaching you from any angle. The idea of only wheeling in 90 degree segments is nonsense.
Secondly, I've taught small formations to wheel properly by changing pace, it took about an hour before they could do it reliably. In larger formations, I would use a marker and have the line reform by sub units wheeling. I've done that with companies in a battalion.
To suggest that ancient troops would be unable to wheel strikes me as incredibly arrogant. It's a pretty basic component of forming a line or advancing. Now whether there are easier ways to change facing would depend on the troops, their familiarity with each other, the length of line etc. And that is worth debating, but blanket saying they didn't or couldn't is leading us down a whole set of blind alley assumptions for which we have no evidence.
Have you ever wheeled a line of infantry 1 - 1,5km long under battlefield conditions? We need to keep in mind that real life in this instance wasn't a parade ground. How wide is a battalion in line? My position is that infantry could and did wheel by subunit into and out of column on the battlefield as that was quick and easy and a column had little trouble marching to a different position and wheeling to a new orientation as well. I'd be interested in understanding what is incredibly arrogant about that.
Re the 90 degree thing, I would like to see some evidence that enemy lines didn't form up parallel to each other, i.e. that one line was at an angle to the other. One instance will suffice. I would also like to see evidence that attacking an enemy line at an angle did anything else except disorder your own line. Again, once instance will suffice.
If you have troops who arrive on your flank - or late arrivals to a battle, the odds on them being exactly 90 degrees or 180 or 270 to your orientation is vanishingly small. At what angle do you think the Prussians arrived in Plancenoit? Or the Persians at Thermopylae? Even Marathon is supposed to have the successful wings wheeling onto the flanks.
And I don't think I have ever suggested wheeling a whole battle line was practical other than by unit markers and reforming on a new line. In the ancients rules I prefer, you can't wheel a longer line.
I just don't think using absolutes, like 'never' or 'always' is particularly helpful
Quote from: Erpingham on April 19, 2021, 08:43:51 AM
I recognise many things in that list as hang-overs from WRG and other "tables and tests" rules of that era, where playability wasn't actually a main criterion.
Interestingly, following John Curry's Conference talk, I tried to implement some of his findings in a set of ancient wargame rules to see how they played out. I found this exercise much easier for bottom up rules like the classic WRG than the more modern top down ones. For example, adjusting movement rates in WRG to reflect quantity of armour is easy when the troop types are based precisely upon that definition. However, when confronted with the DBM(M) definition of Blades that can encompass everything from Viking warriors with minimum armour to European men-at-arms in full plate, it becomes a bit more tricky. Yeah I know, DBx has subtypes, such as Fast (which would probably become Slow) and Superior (which might just become Fast) to the confusion of all.
Any suggestions for alternate modification strategies are welcome.
???
Quote from: DougM on July 07, 1970, 09:57:35 AM
If you have troops who arrive on your flank - or late arrivals to a battle, the odds on them being exactly 90 degrees or 180 or 270 to your orientation is vanishingly small.
My take is that two lines of infantry or cavalry wanted to engage each other pretty much head on, or front straight to flank, or front straight to rear. A few degrees out didn't matter as the attacking formation would still remain in order. But 30 degrees or 45 degrees out did matter as that would result in the attacking formation losing its file structure. I mentioned this in another post - can rehash it if you like. So something like 10 degrees out works, but not much more than that.
Quote from: DougM on July 07, 1970, 09:57:35 AMAt what angle do you think the Prussians arrived in Plancenoit?
I don't know and I'm not too concerned about Prussians as that's a different style of fighting.
Quote from: DougM on July 07, 1970, 09:57:35 AMOr the Persians at Thermopylae?
Frontally, along a narrow pass.
Quote from: DougM on July 07, 1970, 09:57:35 AMEven Marathon is supposed to have the successful wings wheeling onto the flanks.
How was flanking done? Citizen hoplites would just turn and attack the edge of the enemy line (the manuals describe this tactic) or perhaps break formation and swarm around to the rear. Trained professionals like Spartans would get round to the rear in order, but I posit they did it by their rightmost mora forming column, marching to the rear, and forming line again.
Quote from: DougM on July 07, 1970, 09:57:35 AMAnd I don't think I have ever suggested wheeling a whole battle line was practical other than by unit markers and reforming on a new line. In the ancients rules I prefer, you can't wheel a longer line.
My point is that contemporary parade ground drill with relatively small units, done in peaceful conditions, is no guide to what an infantry line in Antiquity, composed of thousands or tens of thousands of men, could do with the enemy in close proximity.
I'm trying to work out the misconception here. Is it Justin underestimating the capabilities of drilled troops in ancient periods? If troops in 18th and early 19th centuries could be trained to carry out drill moves on a battlefield, and they were for the main part illiterate farm boys, why can we not entertain the idea that ancient period troops could do likewise?
The way , incidentally, that 19th century manuals deal with wheels of less than 90 degree increments is to set the unit wheeling, then when the officers perceive it has reached the required facing, they order it to halt or advance as appropriate. It does require a bit of practice (the men on the inside of the wheel need to use a different pace length to those on the outside and those in between adjust accordingly, but that was probably harder for cadence marching troops than ancient ones) but if Doug says he could give the rudiments in an hour, I believe him.
Does every thread have to become Justin's Pet Theory? Maybe reorganise the forum - one thread for Justin's Pet Theory, to keep him happy. One for Of Course Gridded Boards Are Better You Fools - I'll keep that one going (Dave can help me). The rest of you can then have a thread all to yourselves.
Concerning wheels - if this isn't adding anything to what we went over at length last time, why do it?
http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=4794.0
and many earlier threads I can't be bothered to search for.
Justin - you have the crazy I mean novel and interesting new idea, it's up to you to convince us. You can't just demand we provide evidence that disproves your theory (good luck doing that with practically anything in the ancient world), and the straw man of wheeling a 1.5 km line is a straw man, has been pointed out to be a straw man, and I'm sure you know is a straw man. Please, stop it.
Quote from: Holly on April 19, 2021, 08:14:04 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on April 19, 2021, 02:44:10 PM
QuoteI am going to chuck the grenade in the room and say I dont like ZOCs in general
Perhaps we need a new topic "10 things I hate about rules" as these don't seem to be misconceptions per se. Unless we say that ZoC is an abstraction of a misconception about how units behaved in close proximity to the enemy?
that's what I meant Anthony sorry. ZOC's to me give artificial 'control' over other units with an invisible but tangible force emanating from each unit
Perhaps that's something to develop - what do we think ZoC represents? Do ZoC rule capture this Ok? We've had a couple of examples of what ZoCs represent at different scales from Richard and Doug. In battlefield terms, I tend to see them as an abstraction of the caution units in real life show in close proximity to the enemy, unless they are set on closing and fighting. A wargamer might calculate angles and move rates and reckon, in a IGO-UGO situation, he could move through a gap or across a front without interference but in real life, a commander wouldn't take those risks - hence the need for a ZoC. Sounds like some rulesmanship comes into play in some games (probably those which encourage people to worry about millimetres of movement and degrees of angle) though.
So ZoCs can (among other things)
- allow fixed size playing pieces to represent larger units
- avoid some artificialities of IGU-UGO by giving a piece influence outside its turn
- abstractly represent the fact that units in close proximity would be constrained in their choices and actions
Literally, ZoCs do "give artificial 'control' over other units with an invisible but tangible force emanating from each unit" as Dave says - but it's an abstraction of the above (and especially the third). Either that or ancient armies all really did use the Force.
As an abstraction I think it works fine - so are ZoC problems really due to ZoCs or are they due to millimetre finagling and geometric ploys? (In which case we all know the solution, don't we children?)
Quote from: RichT on April 20, 2021, 09:43:10 AM
Does every thread have to become Justin's Pet Theory?
No, no, no! I promise to leave Currently Reading and Currently Painting alone.
Quote from: RichT on April 20, 2021, 09:43:10 AMMaybe reorganise the forum - one thread for Justin's Pet Theory, to keep him happy. One for Of Course Gridded Boards Are Better You Fools - I'll keep that one going (Dave can help me). The rest of you can then have a thread all to yourselves.
Count me in for gridded boards.
Quote from: RichT on April 20, 2021, 09:43:10 AMConcerning wheels - if this isn't adding anything to what we went over at length last time, why do it?
'Cause it's fun? ;)
Quote from: RichT on April 20, 2021, 09:43:10 AMJustin - you have the crazy I mean novel and interesting new idea, it's up to you to convince us. You can't just demand we provide evidence that disproves your theory (good luck doing that with practically anything in the ancient world), and the straw man of wheeling a 1.5 km line is a straw man, has been pointed out to be a straw man, and I'm sure you know is a straw man. Please, stop it.
SQ: hard primary source evidence indicates infantry subunits in Antiquity wheeled, no argument. But what is the evidence - not popular contemporary consensus but evidence - that an entire line wheeled as a line, even by subunit, and not into column? I'm mooting the theory that infantry changed orientation on the battlefield
only by column. Thus far I haven't seen any evidence that they didn't.
Re the Napoleonic period: I'm not very familiar with it, but did line infantry change orientation by line, and if so how long were the lines that did so? I believe infantry were generally broken up into separate brigades that moved and manoeuvred separately on the battlefield, with gaps between them. How wide were those brigades and could be they be considered as equivalent to the subunits of the manuals? If so then of course they could wheel. Since combat was all about muskets I imagine the necessity of facing an enemy head on wasn't so important, what was important was to get all your men into shooting range, hence a need for wheels at various angles.
Edit: yes, this is way off-topic. I'll leave it there.
Quote from: RichT on April 20, 2021, 10:41:46 AM
So ZoCs can (among other things)
...
- abstractly represent the fact that units in close proximity would be constrained in their choices and actions
Literally, ZoCs do "give artificial 'control' over other units with an invisible but tangible force emanating from each unit" as Dave says - but it's an abstraction of the above (and especially the third).
Which is why I prefer the DBMM term "threat zone": the TZ reflects that troops' actions are constrained by the threat of enemy troops very close to them.
Should units faster than the ZOCing units be constrained in the same way slower units are? In DBM terms, the ZOC extends about 100 yards in front of the unit. But what would stop LH, say moving across the front of an infantry line to shoot the infantry at close range? That could backfire of course. Venditius' legionaries took out several Parthian horse archer lines who ventured too close to shoot them.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 20, 2021, 11:26:32 AM
Should units faster than the ZOCing units be constrained in the same way slower units are? In DBM terms, the ZOC extends about 100 yards in front of the unit. But what would stop LH, say moving across the front of an infantry line to shoot the infantry at close range?
In DBM/MM/A terms, of course, that would be moving into contact, as short-range shooting is subsumed into combat. Rules where LH can shoot at a distance would no doubt handle things differently.
Quote from: Duncan Head on April 20, 2021, 12:04:56 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 20, 2021, 11:26:32 AM
Should units faster than the ZOCing units be constrained in the same way slower units are? In DBM terms, the ZOC extends about 100 yards in front of the unit. But what would stop LH, say moving across the front of an infantry line to shoot the infantry at close range?
In DBM/MM/A terms, of course, that would be moving into contact, as short-range shooting is subsumed into combat. Rules where LH can shoot at a distance would no doubt handle things differently.
Would you see it as a problem if LH or regular cavalry could move across the front of an infantry line within their ZOC in order to avoid getting sandwiched against an impassible obstacle?
Quote from: RichT on April 20, 2021, 09:43:10 AM
One for Of Course Gridded Boards Are Better You Fools - I'll keep that one going (Dave can help me).
happy to oblige...they are better
Quote from: Holly on April 20, 2021, 12:34:30 PM
Quote from: RichT on April 20, 2021, 09:43:10 AM
One for Of Course Gridded Boards Are Better You Fools - I'll keep that one going (Dave can help me).
happy to oblige...they are better
Just checking but is "Of course gridded boards are better you fools" a popular misconception, an uncommon misconception or not a misconception at all?
Quote from: Erpingham on April 20, 2021, 12:40:26 PM
Quote from: Holly on April 20, 2021, 12:34:30 PM
Quote from: RichT on April 20, 2021, 09:43:10 AM
One for Of Course Gridded Boards Are Better You Fools - I'll keep that one going (Dave can help me).
happy to oblige...they are better
Just checking but is "Of course gridded boards are better you fools" a popular misconception, an uncommon misconception or not a misconception at all?
Surely you mean metaphysically certain, scientifically certain, or morally certain?
QuoteI'm mooting the theory that infantry changed orientation on the battlefield only by column. Thus far I haven't seen any evidence that they didn't.
Do you have any hard evidence that they did? Just from the point of view of trying to envisage it, you are talking of lines 1.5km long made up of sub-units. They then wheel out forwards so they form a column facing presumably toward the flank and march flank wards until each reaches a turn point at what was the end of the line, then turns 90 degrees and advances in the new direction - this forms a column. Eventually, the column is 1.5km long at right angles to the battlefield. All units then wheel 90 degrees to form a line. The line then advances the 1.5km back to the battlefield. So, all units have moved 3km, taking 45 minutes? Or are the units turning toward the centre, exposing their flanks in sequence at short range to the enemy? It seems to me, from what we might call an IMP position (other people abuse Occam so I will abuse Burne :) ) , that wheeling toward the centre by sub-units will bring the first units into a position quickly and they will cover the flank of the line as it redeploys. This seems to be the way it was done in the 19th century and the basic principle of covering your own deployment seems a fundamental that your average Roman would have easily understood.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 20, 2021, 12:48:41 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on April 20, 2021, 12:40:26 PM
Quote from: Holly on April 20, 2021, 12:34:30 PM
Quote from: RichT on April 20, 2021, 09:43:10 AM
One for Of Course Gridded Boards Are Better You Fools - I'll keep that one going (Dave can help me).
happy to oblige...they are better
Just checking but is "Of course gridded boards are better you fools" a popular misconception, an uncommon misconception or not a misconception at all?
Surely you mean metaphysically certain, scientifically certain, or morally certain?
Thought it better to try and tie it into the title of the topic :)
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 20, 2021, 12:22:56 PM
Quote from: Duncan Head on April 20, 2021, 12:04:56 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 20, 2021, 11:26:32 AM
Should units faster than the ZOCing units be constrained in the same way slower units are? In DBM terms, the ZOC extends about 100 yards in front of the unit. But what would stop LH, say moving across the front of an infantry line to shoot the infantry at close range?
In DBM/MM/A terms, of course, that would be moving into contact, as short-range shooting is subsumed into combat. Rules where LH can shoot at a distance would no doubt handle things differently.
Would you see it as a problem if LH or regular cavalry could move across the front of an infantry line within their ZOC in order to avoid getting sandwiched against an impassible obstacle?
I think Justin needs to prove that mounted troops were never contacted in the ZOC of infantry.. ::)
Quote from: DougM on April 20, 2021, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 20, 2021, 12:22:56 PM
Quote from: Duncan Head on April 20, 2021, 12:04:56 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 20, 2021, 11:26:32 AM
Should units faster than the ZOCing units be constrained in the same way slower units are? In DBM terms, the ZOC extends about 100 yards in front of the unit. But what would stop LH, say moving across the front of an infantry line to shoot the infantry at close range?
In DBM/MM/A terms, of course, that would be moving into contact, as short-range shooting is subsumed into combat. Rules where LH can shoot at a distance would no doubt handle things differently.
Would you see it as a problem if LH or regular cavalry could move across the front of an infantry line within their ZOC in order to avoid getting sandwiched against an impassible obstacle?
I think Justin needs to prove that mounted troops were never contacted in the ZOC of infantry.. ::)
If infantry tried it bad things tended to happen to them, cf Hastings. :P
Quote from: Erpingham on April 20, 2021, 12:40:26 PM
Just checking but is "Of course gridded boards are better you fools" a popular misconception, an uncommon misconception or not a misconception at all?
An unpopular true conception perhaps?
Quote from: RichT on April 20, 2021, 02:09:31 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on April 20, 2021, 12:40:26 PM
Just checking but is "Of course gridded boards are better you fools" a popular misconception, an uncommon misconception or not a misconception at all?
An unpopular true conception perhaps?
As long as we have conceptualised it, it'll be fine.
Quote from: RichT on April 20, 2021, 02:09:31 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on April 20, 2021, 12:40:26 PM
Just checking but is "Of course gridded boards are better you fools" a popular misconception, an uncommon misconception or not a misconception at all?
An unpopular true conception perhaps?
Or possibly the squaring away of an e-motive issue?
an inconceivable misconception immaculately conceived
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3sLhnDJJn0
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 20, 2021, 02:05:16 PM
QuoteI think Justin needs to prove that mounted troops were never contacted in the ZOC of infantry.. ::)
If infantry tried it bad things tended to happen to them, cf Hastings. :P
I don't see any reason to think that the English at Hastings were trying to get at the cavalry from within their ZoC (or indeed TZ); nor that the mounted were trying to move across it.
But infantry can and did charge cavalry and survive:
QuoteAnd their [the Persians'] commander told the leader of the baggage-train to cross the Pactolus river and encamp, while the horsemen themselves, getting sight of the camp-followers on the side of the Greeks, scattered for plunder, killed a large number of them. On perceiving this Agesilaus ordered his horsemen to go to their aid. And the Persians, in their turn, when they saw this movement, gathered together and formed an opposing line, with very many companies of their horsemen.
Then Agesilaus, aware that the infantry of the enemy was not yet at hand, while on his side none of the arms which had been made ready was missing, deemed it a fit time to join battle if he could. Therefore, after offering sacrifice, he at once led his phalanx against the opposing line of horsemen, ordering the first ten year-classes of the hoplites to run to close quarters with the enemy, and bidding the peltasts lead the way at a double-quick. He also sent word to his cavalry to attack, in the assurance that he and the whole army were following them.
Now the Persians met the attack of the cavalry; but when the whole formidable array together was upon them, they gave way, and some of them were struck down at once in crossing the river, while the rest fled on. And the Greeks, pursuing them, captured their camp as well.
Charge cavalry from close enough to catch them flat-footed and pin them against an obstacle - the river - and you've got them. So no, I don't think they should be able to move across the front of infantry within a hundred paces or so; charge or withdraw would seem to be the only realistic options in most cases.
Quote from: Duncan Head on April 20, 2021, 02:52:24 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 20, 2021, 02:05:16 PM
QuoteI think Justin needs to prove that mounted troops were never contacted in the ZOC of infantry.. ::)
If infantry tried it bad things tended to happen to them, cf Hastings. :P
I don't see any reason to think that the English at Hastings were trying to get at the cavalry from within their ZoC (or indeed TZ); nor that the mounted were trying to move across it.
True. I was thinking of Hastings in the sense of cavalry pulling back from infantry who don't stay put but charge after them. Not the best example.
Quote from: Duncan Head on April 20, 2021, 02:52:24 PMBut infantry can and did charge cavalry and survive:
QuoteAnd their [the Persians'] commander told the leader of the baggage-train to cross the Pactolus river and encamp, while the horsemen themselves, getting sight of the camp-followers on the side of the Greeks, scattered for plunder, killed a large number of them. On perceiving this Agesilaus ordered his horsemen to go to their aid. And the Persians, in their turn, when they saw this movement, gathered together and formed an opposing line, with very many companies of their horsemen.
Then Agesilaus, aware that the infantry of the enemy was not yet at hand, while on his side none of the arms which had been made ready was missing, deemed it a fit time to join battle if he could. Therefore, after offering sacrifice, he at once led his phalanx against the opposing line of horsemen, ordering the first ten year-classes of the hoplites to run to close quarters with the enemy, and bidding the peltasts lead the way at a double-quick. He also sent word to his cavalry to attack, in the assurance that he and the whole army were following them.
Now the Persians met the attack of the cavalry; but when the whole formidable array together was upon them, they gave way, and some of them were struck down at once in crossing the river, while the rest fled on. And the Greeks, pursuing them, captured their camp as well.
Charge cavalry from close enough to catch them flat-footed and pin them against an obstacle - the river - and you've got them. So no, I don't think they should be able to move across the front of infantry within a hundred paces or so; charge or withdraw would seem to be the only realistic options in most cases.
Fair enough.
QuoteI was thinking of Hastings in the sense of cavalry pulling back from infantry who don't stay put but charge after them.
AKA pursuit. I can think of a couple of other medieval examples of infantry pursuing cavalry; Montenaken 1465 and Loudon Hill 1307. Disasterous in the first case, successful in the second.
In terms of infantry attacking cavalry, at the Battle of Hausbergen 1262 the Strasbourg militia advanced to rescue their cavalry who were outnumbered by the knights of the Bishop of Trier. The bishops infantry could not advance to aid their own cavalry as they were held back by the shooting of the Strasbourg crossbowmen, so the bishops knights were comprehensively beaten.
Quote from: Erpingham on April 20, 2021, 01:00:05 PM
QuoteI'm mooting the theory that infantry changed orientation on the battlefield only by column. Thus far I haven't seen any evidence that they didn't.
Do you have any hard evidence that they did? Just from the point of view of trying to envisage it, you are talking of lines 1.5km long made up of sub-units. They then wheel out forwards so they form a column facing presumably toward the flank and march flank wards until each reaches a turn point at what was the end of the line, then turns 90 degrees and advances in the new direction - this forms a column. Eventually, the column is 1.5km long at right angles to the battlefield. All units then wheel 90 degrees to form a line. The line then advances the 1.5km back to the battlefield. So, all units have moved 3km, taking 45 minutes? Or are the units turning toward the centre, exposing their flanks in sequence at short range to the enemy? It seems to me, from what we might call an IMP position (other people abuse Occam so I will abuse Burne :) ) , that wheeling toward the centre by sub-units will bring the first units into a position quickly and they will cover the flank of the line as it redeploys. This seems to be the way it was done in the 19th century and the basic principle of covering your own deployment seems a fundamental that your average Roman would have easily understood.
Looking at the battles I know of where infantry didn't just advance and engage the enemy frontally, it seems clear enough that they manoeuvred by column.
1.
GaugamelaThe phalanx wheels right by syntagmata and then moves in column to the right, accompanied by the cavalry.
2.
CannaeThe Libyan veterans on the flanks form column by subunits and march around to the rear of the legions then reform line and attack.
3.
IlipaThe legionaries on the flanks form column by centuries and advance to extend past the Iberians then reform line and advance (I need to check the exact reference for this).
4.
ZamaThe triarii split in half then form two columns by centuries, one facing left and one right, and advance past the hastati and principes, then reform line and advance to the flanks of the hastati and principes in order to extend their line.
5.
CynoscephalaeThe principes and triarii of the victorious Roman right wing stop their pursuit of the shattered left wing Macedonian phalanx, wheel left into column by century, advance to the rear of the right wing phalanx, wheel left again into line, and charge.
Notice that with one exception, infantry form column only for flanking operations. According to the tacticians, a syntagma that wheeled first contracted from intermediate to close order. So if you apply that generally, you get this:
Line of subunits (always square-shaped - syntagma, pentecosty, century)
(https://i.imgur.com/ujaG7rQ.png)
Subunits contract in size from intermediate to close order.
(https://i.imgur.com/dSW6bU0.png)
Subunits individually wheel 90 degrees (the space between them means they don't impede each other).
(https://i.imgur.com/RZNELDs.png)
Subunits expand back to intermediate order and march off.
(https://i.imgur.com/G3ng0js.png)
Square-shaped subunits means that when the column wheels back into line, the subunits are correctly spaced.
Thanks Justin. So you do have clear evidence of these columns in use. I note though that these don't seem to fit your original premise of a line 1.5km long turning through 90 degrees, which was what I was having difficulty with.
Also, is it an assumption that these moves were made not in some sort of follow-my-leader-way but in rigid 90 degree increments, or is that clear from the accounts of the column formation?
Quote from: Erpingham on April 20, 2021, 04:34:47 PM
Thanks Justin. So you do have clear evidence of these columns in use. I note though that these don't seem to fit your original premise of a line 1.5km long turning through 90 degrees, which was what I was having difficulty with.
No, I don't think a complete infantry line ever changed orientation by 90 degrees in any battle, unless it was a revolving door. It was usually part of a line getting round the enemy flank, which meant form column, march past the enemy flank, wheel 90 degrees, advance to the enemy rear, wheel 90 degrees again, march behind the enemy line, wheel into line, charge!
Quote from: Erpingham on April 20, 2021, 04:34:47 PMAlso, is it an assumption that these moves were made not in some sort of follow-my-leader-way but in rigid 90 degree increments, or is that clear from the accounts of the column formation?
Basing myself on the tacticians, I posit only 90 degree wheels (y'know, an approximate 90 degree wheel, give or take a few degrees) as other angles weren't required: you want the hit the enemy flank - and more importantly, the rear - flat on, which means 90 degree changes in orientation. The drill for a wheel I
think required that the men all moved from one prearranged position to another prearranged position, i.e. they practised until they all knew what a 90 degree wheel was. It didn't permit ad-hoc variations later on.
In battles where the enemy weren't in an absolutely straight line, or near straight line, like Hastings where the Saxons followed the contour of the hill, I
think (again) the procedure would be to deploy the troops in several lines that each faced a portion of the enemy more-or-less flat on, and then advanced straight ahead to engage. Unless there's evidence to the contrary?
Hellenistic tacticians = drill and organisation of the Hellenistic 'Macedonian' phalanx.
Gaugamela - Macedonian phalanx, OK.
Cannae - Libyans - Roman drill or who knows?
Ilipa - Romans
Zama - Romans
Cynoscephalae - Romans
It may be that the tacticians have general applicability to all infantry, not just the Hellenistic phalanx, but this is something that needs to be argued for or demonstrated, not just assumed.
That lines (esp. of Hellenistic infantry) could - and often did - manoeuvre to their flanks by forming column is not in doubt. See my 'Epikampios' article in Slingshot a while back, or this thread http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=4127.0 or if really desperate, my book (link in signature, only £30, sometimes less on Amazon :) ).
To go from there to an assertion that no infantry in antiquity could (even in principle) perform wheels is, to say the least, a bit of a stretch. Some new evidence or arguments, rather than just a repetition of the ones we've already had, might be interesting.
ETA: http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=4258.msg55134#msg55134 this also answers a question asked earlier about 19th C inf.
Quote from: RichT on April 20, 2021, 06:52:27 PM
Hellenistic tacticians = drill and organisation of the Hellenistic 'Macedonian' phalanx.
Gaugamela - Macedonian phalanx, OK.
Cannae - Libyans - Roman drill or who knows?
Ilipa - Romans
Zama - Romans
Cynoscephalae - Romans
It may be that the tacticians have general applicability to all infantry, not just the Hellenistic phalanx, but this is something that needs to be argued for or demonstrated, not just assumed.
My point is that every example I can find of infantry changing orientation on the battlefield or doing anything other than move straight forwards involves using columns. The manuals lay out the details of how it was done (fact), but that does not mean only the late Seleucid army did it (also fact). If one army implements a good idea it isn't long before other armies try it out (presuming they are capable of it at all). Germans wheel out panzer divisions; before long Russians, British and Americans are emulating them. The Romans in particular are famous for this (copying other armies, not fielding panzer divisions).
Quote from: RichT on April 20, 2021, 06:52:27 PMThat lines (esp. of Hellenistic infantry) could - and often did - manoeuvre to their flanks by forming column is not in doubt. See my 'Epikampios' article in Slingshot a while back, or this thread http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=4127.0 or if really desperate, my book (link in signature, only £30, sometimes less on Amazon :) ).
£30 - ouch! But then the South African rand is really pathetic against First World currencies.
Quote from: RichT on April 20, 2021, 06:52:27 PMTo go from there to an assertion that no infantry in antiquity could (even in principle) perform wheels is, to say the least, a bit of a stretch.
Never said that. What I need is just
one example - just one teeny, weeny, clearly documented example - of an infantry line in Antiquity wheeling
as a line, either in a single block or by subunit.
Quote from: RichT on April 20, 2021, 06:52:27 PMSome new evidence or arguments, rather than just a repetition of the ones we've already had, might be interesting.
Questions that aren't properly answered have a bad habit of not going away. ::)
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 20, 2021, 07:41:42 PM
What I need is just one example - just one teeny, weeny, clearly documented example - of an infantry line in Antiquity wheeling as a line, either in a single block or by subunit.
And a pony?
The burden of proof is firmly on you to demonstrate that every single manoeuvre of an infantry line in Antiquity was performed in column and that lines never, ever wheeled. It's your theory, you need to convince us, not vice versa.
I'd also like one teeny, weeny, clearly documented example of how Greek hoplites fought each other. I guess we are both doomed to perpetual disappointment.
1. Formulate a theory.
2. Test the theory against all known source evidence to see if the evidence chimes with the theory.
3. Wait and see if any cogent arguments arise that refute the theory.
4. Convince influential academics and media figures that this is a new shiny bandwagon that will effectively replace the tired old bandwagons, variety being the spice of life.
5. Sit back, relax and watch as your theory is propagated as fact, your books sell like hot cakes, and the BBC signs you up for a documentary.
And a bit more seriously...
I've looked at every battle I know of in which infantry change orientation or move in any direction other than straight ahead, and in every single case they do it by column - or, at the very least, the best explanation is that they do it by column. I can't cite any primary source that says "Infantry only wheeled into or as a column and never as a line." Equally there is no primary source quote that "Infantry lines wheeled as lines." Plenty of history is by deduction and inference, producing conclusions that are at least plausible and can even be morally certain. I've supplied evidence. Can the other position supply evidence as well?
Justin,
As per previous threads, you will improve your conceptions if you do look into more modern drill examples.
These two are Napoleonic- but before you get your hopes up there are NO 1.5 km wheels in this period because the whole damn point of Napoleonic drill was to not do that. You may well find some examples somewhere between the WSS and the 7YW though, but again, it's not really the point.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Imperial-Bayonets-Napoleonic-Contemporary-Regulations/dp/1911512234/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=imperial+bayonets&qid=1619008243&sprefix=imperial+bay&sr=8-1
And
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Battle-Tactics-Napoleon-His-Enemies/dp/0094772401/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=brent+nosworthy&qid=1619008292&sprefix=brent+nosw&sr=8-1
They should cover it for you. If you get really into the topic though, I'd be happy to recommend a few more volumes to keep you off this topic here longer
Now all I have to do is buy them... :(
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 21, 2021, 01:59:32 PM
Now all I have to do is buy them... :(
Justin, if you can't find plenty of free examples of 18th and 19th century drill online (with diagrams) your google-foo needs work.
You have to read them, dude.
You can't learn by osmosis, so sticking the books in your pillow case won't work
Quote from: Mark G on April 21, 2021, 09:25:34 PM
You have to read them, dude.
You can't learn by osmosis, so sticking the books in your pillow case won't work
Damn! There goes another self-improvement plan...
To be strictly correct, I believe it does work when studying a bachelors in the commerce faculty ... nothing else would explain how folk with such a low reading age seem to graduate
::)
;D
Quote from: Mark G on April 22, 2021, 09:14:21 AM
To be strictly correct, I believe it does work when studying a bachelors in the commerce faculty ... nothing else would explain how folk with such a low reading age seem to graduate
Well that brightened the day nicely :)
I once took a business administration course together with some MBA students. Apparently, numeracy is completely optional for MBA's.
Numeracy is optional, buzz words are not, sadly.
alas buzz words pervade throughout a lot of business circles
Shame really, I worked with some MBAs in the late 90s and early 2000s. They were really bright. Totally devalued now unless they are from Harvard or similar.
its gotten so bad sometimes but when the CEO hosts a call, our group often play buzz word bingo ::)
Quote from: Holly on April 23, 2021, 07:14:56 AM
its gotten so bad sometimes but when the CEO hosts a call, our group often play buzz word bingo ::)
Doesn't everyone? Personally, I'm just a grumpy old curmudgeon who thinks a lot of the MBA rigmarole is about trying to systematise basic common sense, and things like Project Management, that is essentially a really simple task of getting the right people in the right place at the right time with the right tools, are trying to turn themselves into professions with exclusionary cant (P3M3 anyone?) Don't get me started on HR 'professionals'.
Bah humbug I say. And here endeth the rant.
Going forward, do we need to do a deep dive to get upstream of why we keep going off-beam ? :-\
I've been thinking of another on-topic misconception which affects our period - bloodless condottiere battles. This has a good pedigree - its all Machiavelli's fault. Despite being debunked in the 70s if not earlier it still makes the occassional appearance in popular works or journalism and still merits a disclaimer (like Viking horned helmets) in others. A related topic would be "mercenaries are always untrustworthy", which I remember making it into at least one set of medieval rules' morale tests. This one fails on logic, not just actual history. Why would you pay out good money for an army that was unreliable (except desperation?). Again, Machiavelli may have had a hand in this, with his anti-mercenary stance and belief in honest citizen soldiers, like the Romans.
....which leads to a further misconception that all wargames armies are the triumph of hope over experience.
:P
Speak for your own dice there, I think
Quote from: NickHarbud on April 23, 2021, 09:07:49 AM
....which leads to a further misconception that all wargames armies are the culmination of despair and incompetence.
:P
better......
Quote from: Holly on April 23, 2021, 02:39:26 PM
Quote from: NickHarbud on April 23, 2021, 09:07:49 AM
....which leads to a further misconception that all wargames armies are the culmination of despair and incompetence.
:P
better......
External manifestation of internal despair?
The origin of misconceptions:
Duncan head on a forum somewhere: "I don't know, X is possible"
Someone else on another forum "Duncan Head says it's X"
Someone else on another forum "X is a well known fact".
Quote from: LawrenceG on May 08, 2021, 09:13:18 AM
The origin of misconceptions:
Duncan head on a forum somewhere: "I don't know, X is possible"
Someone else on another forum "Duncan Head says it's X"
Someone else on another forum "X is a well known fact".
There was a issue in the days before army lists really took off when somebody would produce an article in slingshot. For the next few months the changes to what people considered as reasonable were accepted until in four months a refutation of the article appeared :)
happens to me in this house all the time. I murmur some agreement with the CinC about a home improvement and apparently it becomes gospel that I said i would do it and by a certain time and why havent I done it yet....
Quote from: LawrenceG on May 08, 2021, 09:13:18 AM
The origin of misconceptions:
Duncan head on a forum somewhere: "I don't know, X is possible"
Someone else on another forum "Duncan Head says it's X"
Someone else on another forum "X is a well known fact".
Don't know about Duncan but quite a few ancient wargamer misconceptions relate to the information poor environment that WRG set out to tackle. WRG (especially things produced by Phil barker) became "canonical" (as someone suggested earlier). Things became fixed and, because sources weren't always clear, it wasn't always easy to pick out where things had derived from. It's why the wargames information bubble needs to interact with the wider information world. And, joking aside, I think Duncan is an excellent example of how we should do it, prowling around among the new volumes and the journals, absorbing ideas and bringing them back to share for those who don't have the access or time or inclination to do it themselves.
hear hear...
Quote from: Holly on May 08, 2021, 10:03:09 AM
happens to me in this house all the time. I murmur some agreement with the CinC about a home improvement and apparently it becomes gospel that I said i would do it and by a certain time and why havent I done it yet....
Mumbling 'yes dear' while focused on a particular obtuse piece of painting is hugely risky, and can lead to all sorts of unexpected DIY.
Quote from: DougM on May 08, 2021, 01:57:56 PM
Quote from: Holly on May 08, 2021, 10:03:09 AM
happens to me in this house all the time. I murmur some agreement with the CinC about a home improvement and apparently it becomes gospel that I said i would do it and by a certain time and why havent I done it yet....
Mumbling 'yes dear' while focused on a particular obtuse piece of painting is hugely risky, and can lead to all sorts of unexpected DIY.
whilst sticking your tongue out, squinting and contorting your arms to achieve the masterpiece. The unexpected DIY is a direct consequence of such concentration
Schoolboy error. Demonstrate your complete ineptitude at DIY at an early stage and you won't be asked again. Also works with ironing ;)
Cheers
Mick
Quote from: Mick Hession on May 08, 2021, 04:17:42 PM
Schoolboy error. Demonstrate your complete ineptitude at DIY at an early stage and you won't be asked again. Also works with ironing ;)
Cheers
Mick
works with washing up as well ;)
nah doesnt.....the stares just get harder
Quote from: Mick Hession on May 08, 2021, 04:17:42 PM
Schoolboy error. Demonstrate your complete ineptitude at DIY at an early stage and you won't be asked again. Also works with ironing ;)
Cheers
Mick
Yep. My mistake. And now 'er indoors has a touching, but misplaced faith in my ability to do anything from putting up shelves, wallpapering, and construction in wood, to hanging doors and reconditioning vacuum cleaners.
I suspect the wargames related tool kit may have fooled her. An electric sander is for finishing bases, not rejuvenating floor boards.
Quote from: DougM on May 08, 2021, 08:22:15 PM
I suspect the wargames related tool kit may have fooled her. An electric sander is for finishing bases, not rejuvenating floor boards.
I was wondering when we'd get back to common misconceptions.
:)
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on May 08, 2021, 08:35:40 PM
Quote from: DougM on May 08, 2021, 08:22:15 PM
I suspect the wargames related tool kit may have fooled her. An electric sander is for finishing bases, not rejuvenating floor boards.
I was wondering when we'd get back to common misconceptions.