Sources for scenarios . . .

[stockwellpete]

Of course, the Osprey books are a wonderful resource for wargamers in general and those of us who are interested in creating scenarios. But what else do you turn to when you are "re-creating" battles of the past?

My main area of interest at the moment is the late medieval period in Britain. And my main sources of information are William Seymour's trusty "Battles in Britain: 1066-1746" (1975); Wikipedia; and the UK Battlefields Trust website . . .

http://www.battlefieldstrust.com/resource-centre/

In the last few days I have also come across John Kinross's very useful "The Battlefields of Britain" (1979). For Flodden I have just read Niall Barr's superb "Flodden 1513".

Which sources are you using when you are making up your scenarios?

[cothyso]

Usually, Osprey's books are 3rd hand sources.

For a good historical scenario you should, as much as you can, look for primary (1st hand) sources, then on secondary ones (very good historians) and only then on everything else.

For the medieval period (as most of your scenarios are from then), there is a very good place to start it: De Re Militari website, with their primary sources section.

Besides the above ones, articles on JSTOR are also a good place. Wiki can be used for references, but that's it.

[stockwellpete]

The problem with primary sources though, cothyso, is that they can often be just blatant propaganda (the victors usually write the history, after all) or hagiography ("the glorious king killed a mighty host single-handed"). The primary sources for the late medieval period are full of discrepancies and contradictions and they tend to exaggerate numbers of soldiers participating and killed to an absurd degree. So today there are still all sorts of controversies raging around battles ranging from location through numbers to the tactics used - and archaeologists are often the ones who can provide more sober evidence for what actually transpired..

I agree about secondary sources, Niall Barr being one of those for sure, William Seymour is another one, I feel - but given that we are primarily trying to make a game with a good degree of historical atmosphere included in it, then resources such as the Osprey books and Wikipedia are most helpful indeed. I am aware of the De Re Militari website too, an excellent academic resource it most certainly is.

[cothyso]

Of course that's the course of most of the primary sources: they are full of both un-intended and intended inaccuracies, that's why they must be cross-referenced and then interpreted considering armies of the era, manpower availability of the era, logistical situation and capabilities of the era and so on. See Delbruck's analyses for example (which, btw, is one of the mandatory very good historians - though with his faults too).

[tonymcenery]

Some primary sources can be useful - especially if you have multiple primary sources available, from both sides. Then you can sort of 'average out' to get a plausible result (as far as I can see, that is what most historians have to do!). There are some primary resources that are very helpful - battle/formation manuals where they exist, while they might give an idealised view of what you would have seen on the battlefield, at least give you an idea of what the formations of each side *should* have looked lilke.

[TheGrayMouser]

Some primary sources can be useful - especially if you have multiple primary sources available, from both sides. Then you can sort of 'average out' to get a plausible result (as far as I can see, that is what most historians have to do!). There are some primary resources that are very helpful - battle/formation manuals where they exist, while they might give an idealised view of what you would have seen on the battlefield, at least give you an idea of what the formations of each side *should* have looked lilke.

Also to consider is how ist hand accounts usually have a target "audience" that can lead to misunderstanding of what the author actually meant. This is apparent in many of the diaries from the napoleonic times where many officers gave very desriptive accounts of cavalry charges etc, but they were writing to their fellow oficers who knew what they meant without them specifially describing in great detail. So despite all this great ist hand sources , you cant just take them literally.

The ancients often contradict themselves, I belive Thucydides advised a hoplite phalanx really only needed 2 ranks although 4 would have been ok simply to replace tired men in the front. He goes further that 8 men deep would be ok for untrianed/raw troops. Clearly he doenst belive deep formations were all that usefull (and certainly derides the idea that the rear ranks were "pushing" their comrades in front foward.) Yet at the same time we have the Theban formation of a very deep and dense column that was so succesfully used.

Ive said it before but to be able to get a birds eye view of just one ancient battle would be so friggin enlightening:)

[tonymcenery]

Yep, I can see that would be very useful! One thing I meant to mention about sources is Google Earth. On the rare occassion that we know the site of a battle (well, rough site of a battle - let's remember how Bosworth Field shifted a fair distance recently) , a quick look at Google Earth when designing maps can be a bit helpful. Obviously things change, but in some places things are still similar enough to make looking at Google Earth worthwhile.

[cothyso]

well, regarding the optimum phalanx depth, there's still a fierce debate regarding how exactly the greek classical phalanx was actually fighting, and phalanx depth is greatly depending on this. Still, the greatest effect a deep phalanx have on an enemy is rather a morally one, instead of a physical one (if there's no rout, you have to kill 16, or even 32 men in front of you, your file being only 4 or 8 deep.. think about what that can do to morale).

ps: thucydides was elected strategos at least once. which means, military speaking, he knows what he's talking about. think about that..

[batesmotel]

well, regarding the optimum phalanx depth, there's still a fierce debate regarding how exactly the greek classical phalanx was actually fighting, and phalanx depth is greatly depending on this. Still, the greatest effect a deep phalanx have on an enemy is rather a morally one, instead of a physical one (if there's no rout, you have to kill 16, or even 32 men in front of you, your file being only 4 or 8 deep.. think about what that can do to morale).

ps: thucydides was elected strategos at least once. which means, military speaking, he knows what he's talking about. think about that..

The election was probably as much or more political than it was based on skill as a commander. And then there's the fact that Thucydides was exiled by the Athenians after he was blamed (probably unfairly) for losing the former colony of Amphipolis as Strategos. So it's not entirely clear how well he knew what he was talking about .

Chris

[TheGrayMouser]

well, regarding the optimum phalanx depth, there's still a fierce debate regarding how exactly the greek classical phalanx was actually fighting, and phalanx depth is greatly depending on this. Still, the greatest effect a deep phalanx have on an enemy is rather a morally one, instead of a physical one (if there's no rout, you have to kill 16, or even 32 men in front of you, your file being only 4 or 8 deep.. think about what that can do to morale).

ps: thucydides was elected strategos at least once. which means, military speaking, he knows what he's talking about. think about that..

i agree phlanx depth was likly a moral booster although i imagine that under certain circumstances the depth also could serve as flank protection (big differnce of 'crossing the T" of 4 men vs 16)

Not sure about your PS, no doudt Thucy. knew what he was talking about, my understanding is he is concidered one of the more reliable ancient sources. My point is many of our sources were writing "to" contemperaries with the same experiance and background and wernt writing in a style to teach non milatary people the exact mechanics of combat .

[cothyso]

The election was probably as much or more political than it was based on skill as a commander. And then there's the fact that Thucydides was exiled by the Athenians after he was blamed (probably unfairly) for losing the former colony of Amphipolis as Strategos. So it's not entirely clear how well he knew what he was talking about .

Chris

of course the strategos elections were not entirely based on the sole military skill of the participants (on contrary, they depended more on the actual political situation), yet this means thucydides actually fought in the phalanx, and also served as an officer, which means he should have some fair military knowledge about how the phalanx worked and what was required for it to actually take the field with any chances of success. even if he didn't had too much personal military experience, by being in those circles, he knew the general opinion which was circulating trough them.

we can have a little talk about othismos, but it would go far beyond the scope of this thread. it's enough to think about a file of 32 in a column, trying to push with a convex shield in the back of the also convex metal cuirass of their comrades in front of them, something like having a column of spheres and trying to push the 32th in order to put pressure on the first one.. this doesn't look like a really working picture, isn't it? read Hans van Wees' excellent "Greek warfare: Myths and Realities", he's doing a pretty well documented and logical debate against othismos as actually being as it was seen by historians in the last decade.

The theban victories at Leuctra and Mantineea seem to have actually been caused by some other factors than the depth of the theban phalanx (the cavalry fight happening in-between the two phalanxes, with the spartan cavalry being thrown back into the ranks of their phalanx, disordering them badly and the theban phalanx coming right behind their cavalry, quickly exploiting this, the adoption of longer spears may also be a possibility (iphicrates military reform, philip getting the ideea of macedonian sarissa phalanx while being at theban court)). I think that increased phalanx depth was rather used to provide morale boost for the weaker theban hoplites against the invincible spartan ones (as they were seen by the other greeks until Leuctra), cannon fodder to exhaust/chop the shallower spartan phalanx, extra flank cover to prevent the usual spartan right flank envelop and to discourage any attempt of cavalry charge.

[TheGrayMouser]

I have never heard of the term orithsmos, i assume it has to do with the concept of pushing? I dont need a modern historian to tell me that likly was not how they did it. (although i will check out that author, cant read enough on the subject) Thucydides himeslf states that didnt happen and common sense will fill in the rest I mean just look at what happens when a Walmart opens its doors sale time, people get crunched to death (although certainly many of the crushers likly have more body mass than even a Spartan Hoplite in full panalopy, lol)

Now going way off topic, just to stir up the pot, do people think hoplites fought w their spears underhand or over hand? ( i bring this up because there was a long and violent thread in the Total war games about this and what surprised me most is how absilutely certain many were of the one over the other)

[kilroy1]

we can have a little talk about othismos, but it would go far beyond the scope of this thread. it's enough to think about a file of 32 in a column, trying to push with a convex shield in the back of the also convex metal cuirass of their comrades in front of them, something like having a column of spheres and trying to push the 32th in order to put pressure on the first one.. this doesn't look like a really working picture, isn't it?

Their is an interesting article about (and against) othismos at Hollow Lakedaimon.

http://hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.com/


kilroy

[CheerfullyInsane]

Now going way off topic, just to stir up the pot, do people think hoplites fought w their spears underhand or over hand? ( i bring this up because there was a long and violent thread in the Total war games about this and what surprised me most is how absilutely certain many were of the one over the other)

Oh dear........
Easier and less dangerous ways to spend ones time than delving into this.
Tap-dancing in mine-fields, or juggling chain-saws for instance....

Having said that, I'd say overhand.
If for no other reason than the following.......
Imagine the spear-wielder in the first rank
Now Imagine the rear end of the spear sticking out behind the wielder at roughly crotch-height.
Next (wincing if you need to) imagine what happens to the guys in the second rank when the first rank comes to a sudden and violent stop.....

Then again, I'll freely admit that I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes to ancient warfare.
It's a few millennium away from my usual wargaming efforts.

Lars

[cothyso]

Yes, I know about that one, and there are many other too (in JSTOR for example). I intended to make an extensive documentation section for the ancient battles tactical wargame I am working on, trying to gather together and put some order in all the ancient military history resources I've got these years by studying it (ancient sources, books, articles, web pages, sites, reconstructions, reenactment, board and computer games and so on).

[TheGrayMouser]

Now going way off topic, just to stir up the pot, do people think hoplites fought w their spears underhand or over hand? ( i bring this up because there was a long and violent thread in the Total war games about this and what surprised me most is how absilutely certain many were of the one over the other)

Oh dear........
Easier and less dangerous ways to spend ones time than delving into this.
Tap-dancing in mine-fields, or juggling chain-saws for instance....

Having said that, I'd say overhand.
If for no other reason than the following.......
Imagine the spear-wielder in the first rank
Now Imagine the rear end of the spear sticking out behind the wielder at roughly crotch-height.
Next (wincing if you need to) imagine what happens to the guys in the second rank when the first rank comes to a sudden and violent stop.....

Then again, I'll freely admit that I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes to ancient warfare.
It's a few millennium away from my usual wargaming efforts.

Lars

ha ha , I only currently own one chainsaw so am unable to juggle them just yet.

I would argue that an overhand spear grip would needs to be held more toward the center of mass (for balance) as opposed to an under hand grip for an underhand thrust ( since the shaft runs up your forarm it is much more stable, especially when cinched against your side, the greater stability means you can grip the spear much further back along the shaft. This of course would provide more usage of the spears greatest atrribute: stand off length from your foe)
So my own synopsis (and i claim no expertise either) is underhand thrusting would leave no danger to the privates of the men behind them but a wobbly 4-5 feet length of spear at eye level would be disconcerting at the least to the men behind in an overhand usage.

Also my understanding is most hoplite(atleast in the bell curaiiss period) were felled from wounds to the groin or neck, relativley small targets (no quacks about how big your own personal target might be) and overhand thrusting is by nature somewhat unnatual and not very accurate. After all, you never see people stabbing overhand with swords do you ?

BTW try it , get a spear shaped object and practice thrusting at a likey target both underhand and overhand, there is a huge difference in stability and the relative strength of your wrist at these angles.


I do realise most artistic contempary paintings on pots etc show the overhand but but i beleive that could be more an artists convention, afterall it is a more heroic pose and exposes more of the human form to be painted and thus emphaise the artists skill. After all, the artists appear to have liked to show hoplites in full panalopy yet often times they are wearing no skivvies!

Of course I will need to read that interesting link Kilroy provided as maybe there is some info in there re: spear usage

In the end though men likly will use there weapon any way possible to live, possibly forgeting all technique an training when death is an inch away from you.
This is all of course conjecture on my part and i am not insisting this is right or wrong in any sense, but i do find it enjoyable to discuss these things.

[stockwellpete]

My thread has been hi-jacked by a load of pointy stick people!

[CheerfullyInsane]

ha ha , I only currently own one chainsaw so am unable to juggle them just yet.

I would argue that an overhand spear grip would needs to be held more toward the center of mass (for balance) as opposed to an under hand grip for an underhand thrust ( since the shaft runs up your forarm it is much more stable, especially when cinched against your side, the greater stability means you can grip the spear much further back along the shaft. This of course would provide more usage of the spears greatest atrribute: stand off length from your foe)
So my own synopsis (and i claim no expertise either) is underhand thrusting would leave no danger to the privates of the men behind them but a wobbly 4-5 feet length of spear at eye level would be disconcerting at the least to the men behind in an overhand usage.

Two things though. First of all, an underhand grip wouldn't mean a grip further back. While it's more stable when nestled along your lower arm, you'll lose that stability when you thrust with it. It's not a lance so you can't just run at people with it.......
Well, you could, but only if your opponent agreed to stand perfectly still.
Second, it seems (to me at least) that an underhand grip would mean your own shield would get in the way.
Assuming you'll be locking shields with you neighbour, where'd you put the spear if not over the shield?

Also my understanding is most hoplite(atleast in the bell curaiiss period) were felled from wounds to the groin or neck, relativley small targets (no quacks about how big your own personal target might be) and overhand thrusting is by nature somewhat unnatual and not very accurate. After all, you never see people stabbing overhand with swords do you ?

Erm......I usually don't see people with swords, period. Something of a rough neighbourhood you must live in
But the groin/neck wounds make sense no matter what the grip. These are the two areas that are basically unarmored on a hoplite.
So a spear-point glancing up or down the breastplate will end up in one of those places.

I do realise most artistic contempary paintings on pots etc show the overhand but but i beleive that could be more an artists convention, afterall it is a more heroic pose and exposes more of the human form to be painted and thus emphaise the artists skill. After all, the artists appear to have liked to show hoplites in full panalopy yet often times they are wearing no skivvies!

The painters weren't wearing skivvies? How can you tell?
But those a good points. Again, my knowledge of ancient art is actually smaller than my knowledge of ancient warfare (going on infinitely small here), but it seems fair to assume that there's some sort of artistic license going on here.

In the end though men likly will use there weapon any way possible to live, possibly forgeting all technique an training when death is an inch away from you.
This is all of course conjecture on my part and i am not insisting this is right or wrong in any sense, but i do find it enjoyable to discuss these things.

Agree. This is one of those times where I'm tempted to join a re-enacters group.
It usually passes pretty quickly though. Besides, there are limits to those as well.
You can't very well go around beating your next-door neighbour into a bloody pulp with a cudgel, and then claim it was a practical experiment of archeological origins.
.
.
.
More's the pity....

My thread has been hi-jacked by a load of pointy stick people!

This is the internet......
We have the attention-span of a butterfly on cocaine......

[TheGrayMouser]

Some good points there Mr Cheerful, and i too think reenacting could be fun ( although could cause problems later in life if you start a political career) Dont vote for TGM, he joined a Spartan reenactment group 10 years ago , clearly he leans towards socialism/social engineering

Sorry Stockwellpete, i have been doing this a lot lately it seems, my bad.

[cothyso]

Both overhand and underhand spear thrusts are at least awkward to be made in a mob franatically pressing against each-other. The same for the downward killing blows.

Yet, both overhand and underhand spear thrusts were reported/depicted as being used. Same for the back ranks downward killing blows (with the but of the spear in an underhand grip).

Which means they actually were employed and could be done, which means the othismos/pressing of the phalanx was not really as we are perceiving it today (neither in form and/or duration).

Another thing coming to support his is the fact that, as both overhand and underhand thrusts were used in the phalanx warfare, no one seems to ask himself until now how the change of the grip could be made with only one hand in the phalanx formation condition. And my personal answer is that it wasn't! I wanted to write and article about this, but never found the time. The hoplites were not actually changing grip, they were just thrusting with the spear's point when they needed forward underarm thrusts, with the butt when needed forward overarm thrusts or downward underarm thrusts.

And yet another misconception, again supporting the no-othismos fight of the phalanxes' first ranks, is the drifting towards right. My opinion is that it wasn't done looking for a better cover from the neighbor's shield (it did, but in a much smaller measure) as for the natural tendency of a man walking on a flat field to drift right/left due to the fact that the left and right feet muscles are not exactly of the same power and mostly to the fact that the right flank was phalanxe's most vulnerable flank (the famous nonshielded side), and all the phalanxes drifted to the right in order to secure/prevent envelopments on this flank.

I think that the phalanx was actually fighting in a more opened order than is thought (remember for example the famous Chiqi vase, which actually might not be so abstract, than rather realistic, about phalanxe's crash), with the first ranks having enough space to employ both over and under arm thrusts, and the rest of the ranks the downward ones. This would also allow rank rotation (which would make the greater deep phalanxes actually better than shallower ones). The fight will be transformed into othismos towards the end, when niether side had enough power in arms to continue employing spear thrusts.

There is much to discuss about this, and these 3 statements I made above were not made anywhere else, or by any other ancient military historian. I am planning to write an extended article/book about this personal new classical phalanx warfare theory, but as always, not had enough free time