Heavy Weapon

[ShrubMiK]

>Surely Halberdiers and Billmen are as effective as light spears against mounted?

Yes, but in a different way. The light spearman needs sword as well to continue to fight well in the (hopefully) many melee phases that follow the single impact. And possibly armour.

>Even Huscarls were usually armed with a mixture of axes and spears, so you would expect they should also receive some sort of benefit when fighting mounted in the impact phase as well.

The trouble with that logic is if you regard the BG as having mixed weapon types you either need to represent it as a mixed BG, or pick whichever you feel is the tactically dominant weapon type. Suppose it was half and half, and you get full POA a bonus for the half with spears, you've been given the effect of a full spear unit for only half the umber of spearmen. You've also got the full HW effect for only half the number of HW guys. That I think could be regarded as quite cost effective

[Ghaznavid]

Well if heavy weapon got a POA against mounted then there would not be any infantry other than archers or light spear medium foot who mounted lancers get any advantage against at impact.

You could make an arguement that this isn't actually ahistorical. I realize this isn't the choice that was made and that is fine, but I don't think it is necessary that Lancers have something to ride down frontally...

Yes and no. The problem is that there is no CT for foot for being charged by shock mounted in FoG. So the interaction of 'Lancers make a charge attempt, stop and withdraw if the infantry does not flinch (or charge home if it does)' isn't simulated and has to be assumed to be included in the impact and melee of the 1st round (after which the mounted either broke in the infantry formation [disrupted it] or broke off). The problem with that is that the chances for mounted vs. lots of (mostly spear armed) foot is slightly worse then I think it should be, especially due to the high risk for the mounted to lose a base.

[Strategos69]

Well if heavy weapon got a POA against mounted then there would not be any infantry other than archers or light spear medium foot who mounted lancers get any advantage against at impact.

You could make an arguement that this isn't actually ahistorical. I realize this isn't the choice that was made and that is fine, but I don't think it is necessary that Lancers have something to ride down frontally...

Yes and no. The problem is that there is no CT for foot for being charged by shock mounted in FoG. So the interaction of 'Lancers make a charge attempt, stop and withdraw if the infantry does not flinch (or charge home if it does)' isn't simulated and has to be assumed to be included in the impact and melee of the 1st round (after which the mounted either broke in the infantry formation [disrupted it] or broke off). The problem with that is that the chances for mounted vs. lots of (mostly spear armed) foot is slightly worse then I think it should be, especially due to the high risk for the mounted to lose a base.

I haven't played many games, just a few to try the rules, but it seems that, except for the numbers, there is not much disadvantage for heavily armoured mounted charging foot. In an article I read recently it was said that a frontal charge from the cavalry into any infantry formation was condemned to failure unless they started running before receiving the charge. I guess that this kind of things have to be sacrified in order to enhace the game play.

[hazelbark]

I haven't played many games, just a few to try the rules, but it seems that, except for the numbers, there is not much disadvantage for heavily armoured mounted charging foot. In an article I read recently it was said that a frontal charge from the cavalry into any infantry formation was condemned to failure unless they started running before receiving the charge. I guess that this kind of things have to be sacrified in order to enhace the game play.

I think you have to be careful that view is very much a 18th and 19th century view of cavalry charges. I think you can make the case it is somewhat true in the ancient period, but there are cases that would be easier for the mounted.

Your heavily armoured example is very dependent on who they are charging. It is possible they get a bloody nose and bounce off blooded.

I don't think it is sacrificed. If the infantry fails a CT, then it started to flinch and is likley to be in trouble.

[grahambriggs]

The interaction seems to be reasonably well balanced to me. Lancers with better armour need to get lucky against 'proper' foot (say HF off spear) to win the impact but have a better chance in the melee. If the foot disrupt in either phase the mounted will likely butcher them, if not the mounted will get a bit of a mauling then withdraw.

[graym]

While on this topic I've had some reservations from the start about HW negating all armour. Bring it down one level maybe , but it looks extreme as it is. .
It seems ridiculous that a Heavy armoured with HW fights an unprotected with HW on the same level.

Highlighting this are some of the South American lists which classifies what looks like a rock on a stick as a HW.
OK fighting in a themed comp but having naked guys with rock sticks slugging it out with dismounted heavy knights on a level playing field just doesnt seem right.

[Strategos69]

I haven't played many games, just a few to try the rules, but it seems that, except for the numbers, there is not much disadvantage for heavily armoured mounted charging foot. In an article I read recently it was said that a frontal charge from the cavalry into any infantry formation was condemned to failure unless they started running before receiving the charge. I guess that this kind of things have to be sacrified in order to enhace the game play.

I think you have to be careful that view is very much a 18th and 19th century view of cavalry charges. I think you can make the case it is somewhat true in the ancient period, but there are cases that would be easier for the mounted.

Your heavily armoured example is very dependent on who they are charging. It is possible they get a bloody nose and bounce off blooded.

I don't think it is sacrificed. If the infantry fails a CT, then it started to flinch and is likley to be in trouble.

I should have explained myself better. This is one of the articles I have read (page 118):

http://gladius.revistas.csic.es/index.p ... view/38/39

He also quotes Keegan (1976): The face of battle. The author states that it is rather a myth the power of cavalry charges in the Middle Ages against steady and well prepared foot. It is more likely that those charges were against poor infantry or footmen that had already suffered heavily from shooting. If we think it as he proposes, it makes sense: it is not that easy to make a horse hit against a good formation.

18th and 19th century calvary, even since the tercios were ni place in 16th, just adapted to a scenario where infantry was well prepared, which was not the case for Middle Ages. Therefore, they reduced their armor and were more mobile. Their chances of success depended on the fact that the infantry was not able to form a defensive square, thus, a proper formation. And just thinking in Ancient times, in FoG it is even possible to charge a HF or MF and have a big chance of success. And that, in my opinion, it is not very historical.

[Ghaznavid]

I should have explained myself better. This is one of the articles I have read (page 118):

http://gladius.revistas.csic.es/index.p ... view/38/39

He also quotes Keegan (1976): The face of battle. The author states that it is rather a myth the power of cavalry charges in the Middle Ages against steady and well prepared foot. It is more likely that those charges were against poor infantry or footmen that had already suffered heavily from shooting. If we think it as he proposes, it makes sense: it is not that easy to make a horse hit against a good formation.

18th and 19th century calvary, even since the tercios were ni place in 16th, just adapted to a scenario where infantry was well prepared, which was not the case for Middle Ages. Therefore, they reduced their armor and were more mobile. Their chances of success depended on the fact that the infantry was not able to form a defensive square, thus, a proper formation. And just thinking in Ancient times, in FoG it is even possible to charge a HF or MF and have a big chance of success. And that, in my opinion, it is not very historical.

Well if we accept that mounted had no chance vs good foot but also accept that mounted ruled the battlefield for centuries (so they obviously did enjoy an advantage over foot for those centuries) that leads to one of two conclusions:
a.) Almost all infantry was totally rubbish during these times (so especially most dark age and medieval infantry would then end up up as poor and possibly MF).
OR
b.) Mounted need more manouverability to more easily exploit the flanks of the infantry (especially knights are basically unable to do that currently, and if they did not win in a frontal assault ...).

Of course accepting that mounted had usually no chance frontally then brings up the question why did they try it so often?

[marioslaz]

Of course accepting that mounted had usually no chance frontally then brings up the question why did they try it so often?

This is not true in absolute. As you mentioned, in Medieval Age foot were no match for knight, because at that stage of technology mounted troops got the primate, and they retained until fire weapons developing.
P.S. Of course I put it in a very simple way, because for example in Later Medieval Age the Pavesari could be a though opponent for knight, and we can also find a lot of example of mounted troops stronger than foot opponents in Ancient Era too.

[Ghaznavid]

Actually, that was more a rhetorical question. I do not believe that mounted were incapable of riding down any but the crappiest infantry. Strategos seems to believe in that though.

[Strategos69]

Actually, that was more a rhetorical question. I do not believe that mounted were incapable of riding down any but the crappiest infantry. Strategos seems to believe in that though.

Answering your question: because they knew (or thought) the infantry was crappy!! Look why English stopped charging frontally enemy foot: because they learnt the lesson sonner than French!

I don't know much about Middle Age (I am more interested in Ancients) but I think the only way to make your point is looking at examples. I recognize that I used to think of heavy cavalry charging as an unstopable force, until I read battle by battle how that happened. I will put some examples:

- Hastings 1066: the archers and infantrymen shoot and charge over the Saxons and they are repelled; the Norman cavalry charges for hours the shields wall and is repelled again; the cavalry flee or simulate it; the Saxon infantry charge and get disordered; cavalry charge the pursuers; infantry regroups; cavalry is then again unable to break their formation.
- Nicopolis: cavalry charges conscripts and wins; meets a little more trained infantry surrounded by stakes and then half of them dismount and finally put them on rout. Infantry regroups with friendly Turk cavalry and they beat French knights.

There might be more succesful cavalry charges, but even in the case of succesful cavalry charges I see whether a poor infantry or a weakend infantry. And I have not quoted the cases of unsuccesful cavalry charges: Bannockburn, Crecy, Poiters, Agincourt...

[pyrrhus]

what about the battle of Magnesia didn't Antiochos charge with the Cataphracts frontally against legionarys? You could make an argument of the legionarys not being the best against mounted vs the best mounted at the time ,still both forces were fresh and it was full frontal (nudity oops) charge and the mounted won. I will try and find some more but it does look like only the knight/cataphact mounted should be able to do this (attack steady infantry frontally ) . Am I wrong here are there other battles where this happened with cav lancers like sarmations or something?

[Strategos69]

I have just read the account of the battle in Titus Livius (XXXVII - 45) and it is interesting. I have also read that Apian provides a different description of the battle. Maybe you can find there the frontal charge of the cataphracts. According to Livy, that day in Magnesia 300 legionaries died in the whole battle. Apparently Antigono's cataphracts charged frontally against the four turmae of Roman cavalry and then charged some infantry men on the exposed flank.

In Carrhae the cataphracts charged only when the Romans had dispersed and suffered from hours of shooting. It is an interesting topic as the more I read the more I realize that cavalry is overrated, which it does not mean that it was useless. In forraging actions previous to battle Caesar describes in De bello civile how useful were his cavalrymen when the enemy had no one in Spain, and when troops were rooting.

[ShrubMiK]

Quoting single battles isn't very helpful - you could also pick out some where legionaries beat cataphracts.

The Romans were worried enough about Alans/Sarmations charging them that they developed specific tactics for the situation. That doesn't mean cav/lancers should routinely beat legionaries, but it does suggest that it should be possible.

[Ghaznavid]

Actually, that was more a rhetorical question. I do not believe that mounted were incapable of riding down any but the crappiest infantry. Strategos seems to believe in that though.

Answering your question: because they knew (or thought) the infantry was crappy!! Look why English stopped charging frontally enemy foot: because they learnt the lesson sonner than French!

I don't know much about Middle Age (I am more interested in Ancients) but I think the only way to make your point is looking at examples. I recognize that I used to think of heavy cavalry charging as an unstopable force, until I read battle by battle how that happened. I will put some examples:

- Hastings 1066: the archers and infantrymen shoot and charge over the Saxons and they are repelled; the Norman cavalry charges for hours the shields wall and is repelled again; the cavalry flee or simulate it; the Saxon infantry charge and get disordered; cavalry charge the pursuers; infantry regroups; cavalry is then again unable to break their formation.
- Nicopolis: cavalry charges conscripts and wins; meets a little more trained infantry surrounded by stakes and then half of them dismount and finally put them on rout. Infantry regroups with friendly Turk cavalry and they beat French knights.

There might be more succesful cavalry charges, but even in the case of succesful cavalry charges I see whether a poor infantry or a weakend infantry. And I have not quoted the cases of unsuccesful cavalry charges: Bannockburn, Crecy, Poiters, Agincourt...

I will give you Bannockburn, although it was more a disorganized mess then a proper full cavalry charge. All your other examples are infantry (usually with ranged weapons) in prepared positions, behind obstacles or on higher ground. We could easily add to the number of cavalry charges that failed due to unsuitable terrain, etc. If you equate non-crappy infantry with infantry led well enough to take up positions unsuitable to a cavalry charge or prepare obstacles, then yes I agree mounted had no chance frontally. That would be a pretty interesting definition of 'non-crappy' though.

You really think the Romans would have bothered with elaborate setups like in the battle order vs. the Alans if they believed frontal cavalry charges where doomed to failure anyway? (I'm going to assume you will not rate legionaries of the 2nd cen. as crappy infantry.) And I doubt the Sarmatians, while certainly fine horsemen, where in the same league as medieval knights in terms of sheer impact.

[ShrubMiK]

And therein lies the problem...you can't lump the whole period covered by FoG together. As soon as you mention knights and legionaries together in the same breath, all debate becomes pointless!

[pyrrhus]

The Romans were worried enough about Alans/Sarmations charging them that they developed specific tactics for the situation. That doesn't mean cav/lancers should routinely beat legionaries, but it does suggest that it should be possible

I agree with you here fog does this

And therein lies the problem...you can't lump the whole period covered by FoG together. As soon as you mention knights and legionaries together in the same breath, all debate becomes pointless!

but here I dont .I get your point but I am not sure you get Ghaznavids. He only mentions knights with legionaries to make a point/comparison about Sarmation impact strength .I dont think we are compairing rayguns to thrown rocks here ,Its a fair comparison .

[Ghaznavid]

And therein lies the problem...you can't lump the whole period covered by FoG together. As soon as you mention knights and legionaries together in the same breath, all debate becomes pointless!

How lucky then that I didn't.
I merely stated that I consider medieval knights to have an even more powerfull charge then the ancient Sarmatians. (And by extension that even infantry better suited to resist mounted charges (i.e. spear armed) should struggle against them, if the Romans struggled against Sarmatians. Yes, yes I know, that is me expecting people to actually think about what they read. One of my many faults I guess. )


Edit: Looks like Pyrrhus beat me to make this point, not bad for a guy a couple thousend years old.

[Strategos69]

Quoting single battles isn't very helpful - you could also pick out some where legionaries beat cataphracts.

The Romans were worried enough about Alans/Sarmations charging them that they developed specific tactics for the situation. That doesn't mean cav/lancers should routinely beat legionaries, but it does suggest that it should be possible.

I agree with you. I have read Arrians description of the tactics used against the Alans and you are right in the sense that they were worried about being cut by their charge. But the point is that looking at battles (not just picked examples, but as much as we can get) we can realize how troops were really used. Alans would be also conscious, once they have been countered, that their tactics charging the middle of the enemies' infantry formation would be a failure. What if questions hardly get to any point. So my question is in which battle the Alans did attack the center of the Roman legions and destroyed them.

[Strategos69]

You really think the Romans would have bothered with elaborate setups like in the battle order vs. the Alans if they believed frontal cavalry charges where doomed to failure anyway? (I'm going to assume you will not rate legionaries of the 2nd cen. as crappy infantry.)

I agree with you that they were worried about it. I am not saying that throwing masses of mounted men against infantry, although difficult, would not be worrying. In fact most of heavy cavalry charges did succeed because the infantry fled before contact. Surely I wouldn't have liked to be in front of those horses! But that's the point: if infantry in good order knew how to stand, no options for cavalry. That's why I was asking for examples of succesful charges of cavalry against infantry in good order.

I will give you Bannockburn, although it was more a disorganized mess then a proper full cavalry charge. All your other examples are infantry (usually with ranged weapons) in prepared positions, behind obstacles or on higher ground. We could easily add to the number of cavalry charges that failed due to unsuitable terrain, etc. If you equate non-crappy infantry with infantry led well enough to take up positions unsuitable to a cavalry charge or prepare obstacles, then yes I agree mounted had no chance frontally. That would be a pretty interesting definition of 'non-crappy' though.

Following the thread, add the battle of Falkirk, where the Scottish pikement stood against a heavy cavalry charge and the cavalry fled, even if the Scottish cavalry was not object of the charge! Look any battle with the Swiss infantry and finally the tercios and you will see how, when States raised again and kept regular armies with regular formations and instruction, cavalry was no longer master of the field. And, yes, in general I think most of Medieval European infantry was very poor to stand against any enemy but another poor infantry formation.