Ancient cavalry, too powerful in FoG?

[rbodleyscott]

Julian's account of Constantius II battle against Sharpur II at Singara has the Roman infantry charging the Sasanid army, apparently mostly mounted troops, which promptly turned tail and fled for their camp. The Romans allegedly then chased the Sasanids for 15 miles!. The Roman army was extremely thirsty when they arrived at the camp and the Sasanids counter-attacked and drove off the Romans who were busy searching for water. Again, at the Battle of Narasara, Constantius II army beat Sharpur II's army, killing Sharpur's brother Narseus in the process. Julian's army defeated the Sasanids at Ctestiphon and Maranga. At all these battles it was the infantry who appears to have been the deciding factor in the Sasanids defeat, and the Sasanids were unable to defeat a Late Roman field army after 297AD until the 6th Century AD, when 'Roman' infantry were but a shadow of their former self.

And how is this not represented by the rules?

The Romans are on + POA at impact vs Sassanid cavalry, and on 0 POA in melee, but are cheaper so ought to have some overlaps. In short, they should win.

[madaxeman]

To me, this seems to be how the rules work. A good solid line of hoplites (i.e. no cavalry overlaps) means 6 or 8 hoplite bases against 4 cavalry, so the cavalry should struggle. Hoplite generals were sensible enough to make sure their troops fought in a solid line, with guarded flanks if there were cavalry about.

Point for point this is right - however armies with decent cavalry usually have the mobility and numbers to throw 3-5 units on a frontage of 6-10 elements into a solid line of hoplites or other foot, and then the extra width counts for naught.

Maybe mobility is underpriced?

[philqw78]

Maybe mobility is underpriced?

Without a doubt. People always take drilled where foot are concerned.

[batesmotel]

I'm less concerned about the quality grading. With rbodleyscotts explanation, and a review of the Immortal Fire/Rise of Rome lists, it seems to mostly make sense to me, and I appreciate the options as a player. I like armoured superior swordsmen being valuable troop types (in other rule-sets based on weaponry they suck!) -- the ultimate do-all.

What I am still concerned about is the overall results in cavalry vs spear melee. As a player with Superior armoured cavalry and a general (easy to acquire), I consider frontal charges on steady protected spearmen (fresh well-ordered hoplites) a reasonable proposition. It took me a while to see it, as a lover of history my prejudice clouded the situation. Yes, they get lots of dice in melee if you are in a bad position ... just don't be in a bad position.
A unit of 6 average spearmen to me is an ideal target (6 dice vs 4 dice rerolling 1and2, both needing 4+) , but you can tackle 8 with some support troops to absorb some dice. MF spears are good choices since they are also fast. If you don't win, fine you likely won't suffer much and can try again, thanks to the rerolls and bonuses offered by the commander. However, I find I often win and this isn't really a concern.

A unit of 6 poor spearmen cause me to absolutely salivate.
Add Elite lancers with IC attached ... he he. It will all be over sooner.

Maybe someone can run the numbers for me as a favour, perhaps I'm unreasonably lucky and winning these combats is not likely.
I think as a cavalry player, I shouldn't have this option. Even Alexander looked for moments of weakness, flanks and gaps before launching the companions, and in all accounts they stayed clear of steady hoplites in the front.
I think a small chance for breakthrough in the impact phase is good for gameplay, but melee is usually where the damage is done. I think melee should be your punishment for failure in impact, and the break-off a moment of respite before another attempt.

Some of the problem here for the late Classical period is the decision to treat all hoplites as protected after 460 B.C. While this may give the correct historical balance against Macedonian pikes, it may well throw things too heavily in favor of Persian cavalry if the cavalry are fielded as armoured and superior. If fighting a historical scenario with Persians against later Hoplites, it is probably more accurate to field the Persian cavalry as protected with a couple of BGs as armoured to represent guards or other better cavalry that is using substantial horse barding in addition to the riders armour, e.g. Saka or Bactrians or similar.

Chris

[Strategos69]

A battle that might have some bearing on this debate is Magnesia, where the Selucid right, including cataphracts, seem to have broken Roman legions frontally. Of course that is not cavalry as defined in the rules.

At this juncture the Romans heard in another part of the field the cries of their own men in flight, almost at the very gates of their camp. Antiochus from his position on his right wing had noticed that the Romans, trusting to the protection of the river, had only four squadrons of cavalry in position there, and these, keeping in touch with their infantry. had left the bank of the river exposed. He attacked this part of the line with his auxiliaries and cataphracti, and not only forced back their front, but wheeling round along the river, pressed on their flank until the cavalry were put to flight and the infantry, who were next to them, were driven with them in headlong flight to their camp.

I think I mentioned the possibility of Magnesia in the first post. The account of the battle you mention is the one I have read in Apian (a frontal attack). In Livy's account, it looks like that they caught the legions from the flank. As it has been said, the problem is that cavalry usually gets the combats it wants. The proposed changes in the PoA's would fix the situation for the cavalry.

Regarding Marathon, I think that what the Greeks feared was the cavalry camping at their will. The cavalry could harass the infantry with total impunity (even get into the unprotected Athens), cutting the supplies from the army, isolating groups and killing them. It is really interesting the account of Caesar of his campaigns in Spain as you get to see how important the cavalry was in non battle tasks. Actually Caesar got to surrender Pompeian legions by cutting their supplies, to what they had no reply. That is why, for example, I propose improving the cavalry when receiving a charge from HF, considering that a charge gets some groups isolated and you can make your superior mobility count more.

[Strategos69]

By quote I meant a book, chapter and page (preferably an Ancient source) we could take a look into and debate.

"The Art of Warfare in Bibilical Lands" pages 440 - 450, show Cavalry and Chariot Charges into the Elamites and Arabs. Although it must be noted that the Chariots normally went in first.

Do you need me to go through Heath's Armies of Medieval Europe to type out the instances of the French riding down the Low Countries pikemen?

Perhaps the Assyrian example is not the most helpful; we have much less information on such battles than Roman ones (we know the Assyrians won, but not how they won). Also, I think the Elamites are MF, and the concern was with HF I think?

The problem with some MF is that they have no chance against mounted (maybe they should just transformed into HF, but with the problem of reducing their capacity to ambush). Take for example the Ancient Spanish: medium impact foot swordsmen. If I read the chart right, they are -PoA at impact and also a - PoA at melee. If they were that bad against cavalry, why don't we find that in the sources? Iphicratean hoplites, thureophoroi, Italian auxiliary infantry... all those troops suffer innecesarily from cavalry.

Regarding the Elamites (besides the fact that Mark Healy in The Ancient Assyrians also observes that first chariots disrupted the enemy so that the cavalry could exploit the gaps), right now, if we consider the Elamites as medium foot bowmen (are they sowrdsmen too?) they are -PoA at impact and --PoA at melee. With the proposed changes they would remain -PoA at impact (-PoA for medium foot, +PoA for cavalry charge, - PoA for the light spear to solve ties) and would be -PoA at melee. Not a big change and still with many options for the cavalry to win that combat.

[philqw78]

Regarding the Elamites (besides the fact that Mark Healy in The Ancient Assyrians also observes that first chariots disrupted the enemy so that the cavalry could exploit the gaps), right now, if we consider the Elamites as medium foot bowmen (are they sowrdsmen too?) they are -PoA at impact and --PoA at melee. With the proposed changes they would remain -PoA at impact (-PoA for medium foot, +PoA for cavalry charge, - PoA for the light spear to solve ties) and would be -PoA at melee. Not a big change and still with many options for the cavalry to win that combat.

Where are you getting your POAs? MF bow v's HCh are -- at impact, Mounted v MF get a + and HCh get +. Then in Melee they are single -. HCh in melee giving a plus against the MF with no POA.

[Strategos69]

Regarding the Elamites (besides the fact that Mark Healy in The Ancient Assyrians also observes that first chariots disrupted the enemy so that the cavalry could exploit the gaps), right now, if we consider the Elamites as medium foot bowmen (are they sowrdsmen too?) they are -PoA at impact and --PoA at melee. With the proposed changes they would remain -PoA at impact (-PoA for medium foot, +PoA for cavalry charge, - PoA for the light spear to solve ties) and would be -PoA at melee. Not a big change and still with many options for the cavalry to win that combat.

Where are you getting your POAs? MF bow v's HCh are -- at impact, Mounted v MF get a + and HCh get +. Then in Melee they are single -. HCh in melee giving a plus against the MF with no POA.

I was doing the cavalry light spear armoured swordsmen vs medium foot bowmen interaction. I assumed the bowmen, being half naked in the depictions, would not have any armour nor swords. For impact, right now, the cavalry get
+ PoA against MF

At melee:
+ PoA for swordsmen
+ PoA for better armour

With the proposed changes at impact
+PoA against MF
- PoA cavalry charging MF or HF
+ PoA for light spear mounted when no other net PoA's apply
At melee:
+ PoA for swordsmen
+ PoA for better armour
-PoA for fighting MF or HF

I did not speak about Heavy Chariots. Sorry if I did not express that right

[philqw78]

No problem I did not read all the original fully, it was a combined Chariot cavalry attack.

[ValentinianVictor]

Julian's account of Constantius II battle against Sharpur II at Singara has the Roman infantry charging the Sasanid army, apparently mostly mounted troops, which promptly turned tail and fled for their camp. The Romans allegedly then chased the Sasanids for 15 miles!. The Roman army was extremely thirsty when they arrived at the camp and the Sasanids counter-attacked and drove off the Romans who were busy searching for water. Again, at the Battle of Narasara, Constantius II army beat Sharpur II's army, killing Sharpur's brother Narseus in the process. Julian's army defeated the Sasanids at Ctestiphon and Maranga. At all these battles it was the infantry who appears to have been the deciding factor in the Sasanids defeat, and the Sasanids were unable to defeat a Late Roman field army after 297AD until the 6th Century AD, when 'Roman' infantry were but a shadow of their former self.

And how is this not represented by the rules?

The Romans are on + POA at impact vs Sassanid cavalry, and on 0 POA in melee, but are cheaper so ought to have some overlaps. In short, they should win.

I's not a problem restricted to FOG, no set of rules allows heavy infantry to chase any kind of mounted troops off the table, the player with the mounted troops will just move the mounted troops out of the way.

In the examples I gave we can be reasonably be certain that the Roman's faced large numbers of cataphracts, who made no impression upon either the Roman infantry or Roman cavalry, which is quite frankly a bit of a mystery.

[philqw78]

In the examples I gave we can be reasonably be certain that the Roman's faced large numbers of cataphracts, .

How?

[dave_r]

A battle that might have some bearing on this debate is Magnesia, where the Selucid right, including cataphracts, seem to have broken Roman legions frontally. Of course that is not cavalry as defined in the rules.

It does seem the case that hoplites were concerned about Persian cavalry. For example, at Marathon the Athenians kept on the defensive until the Persians embarked their cavalry. "The cavalry are away" later became a phrase with the connotation "we have an opportunity".

Of course, we don't know from this whether it was the manouverability and shooting of the cavalry that was the problem or whether a frontal charge was feared. I would think the latter was unlikely; the Persians didn't seem to want to mount a frontal charge against hoplites in the Greek campagn. When they did get into combat with hoplites - in the run up to Plataea they came off second best.

To me, this seems to be how the rules work. A good solid line of hoplites (i.e. no cavalry overlaps) means 6 or 8 hoplite bases against 4 cavalry, so the cavalry should struggle. Hoplite generals were sensible enough to make sure their troops fought in a solid line, with guarded flanks if there were cavalry about.

The other battle I mentioned had the Thatean Cavalry overrun the Greek hoplites.

[nikgaukroger]

In the examples I gave we can be reasonably be certain that the Roman's faced large numbers of cataphracts, .

How?

Because of what the historical record tells us - not that Adrian has Singara quite right ... again ...

In fact it suggests that there should be catafract archers, however, Richard wouldn't let me have them

[philqw78]

In fact it suggests that there should be catafract archers, however, Richard wouldn't let me have them

Oh, so you would do it for Sassanids but not Tibetans, bloody favouritism

[ValentinianVictor]

In the examples I gave we can be reasonably be certain that the Roman's faced large numbers of cataphracts, .

How?

Because of what the historical record tells us - not that Adrian has Singara quite right ... again ...

In fact it suggests that there should be catafract archers, however, Richard wouldn't let me have them

I based it on Julians account of Singara and not Festus account.
And I agree, both Sasanid and Late Roman clibanarii/catafractarii should be lance and bow armed. Julians account of Mursa suggests that Constantius' clibanarii used bows before charging in and breaking their opponents.

[nikgaukroger]

I based it on Julians account of Singara and not Festus account.

Surely Libanius has the most detailed account - the one with Roman infantry side-stepping the charging cavalry - as opposed to Julian who mentions no material detail of the fighting at all?

[nikgaukroger]

In fact it suggests that there should be catafract archers, however, Richard wouldn't let me have them

Oh, so you would do it for Sassanids but not Tibetans, bloody favouritism

These would be Bow, Swordsmen catafracts, so not the same situation.

[shadowdragon]

Hmmm....and I thought this thread was dead and was going to leave it alone, but since it's alive...or ambulatory at least....

I've played several games of light spear cavalry versus offensive spearmen over the last few weeks since the original post. I played games rather than calculated precise odds for a single unit versus single unit for two reasons - (1) context is important and (2) impression for the player is really what matters. I've played 800 point games with 4 TC per side and the rest made up of protected average offensive spearmen on one side against variants of armoured superior, protected superior and protected average cavalry on the other. I did a single game of armoured superior spearmen versus armoured superior cavalry. All cavalry BG were of 4 bases and all spearmen of 6 bases. Spears were deployed in 3 ranks and except for one game where the cavalry were in columns (1 base by 4 ranks), the cavalry were in 2 ranks.

The results???

Armoured superior cavalry versus protected average spearmen are approximately a 50-50 proposition. The brittleness of the spears show with 1 in 6 becoming fragmented / routed but the rest hold firm. Of the cavalry that bounce, nearly half were disrupted. One might think that's okay, but aggressive use of the offensive spearmen can cause a few increased heartbeats for those disrupted cavalry. The winning cavalry ended up running afoul of the supporting line of spear BG that their cheaper points allowed. Cavalry deployed in columns did expose the problem with small BGs and base loses in particular. However, the cavalry in columns were only able to occupy half the battlefield allowing the unopposed spearmen eventually cause problems. The cavalry can get in one good attack but the unopposed wing of spearmen were able to make their presence felt before the cavalry could regroup which resulted in a greatly diminished 2nd and successive attacks. I found the results better for the cavalry by deploying in two ranks as they were able to engage the entire front of spear BG (10 BG of cavalry versus 10 BG of spearmen with 5 spear BG in reserve). Results were still 50-50ish either way.

Reducing the cavalry to superior protected shifted to a marginal victory for the spearmen with the entire line of BGs holding (albeit with some BG disrupted) but several cavalry BG were repulsed fragmented. As for using average protected cavalry....just concede and save everyone the trouble.

I tried one game of armoured superior spearmen versus armoured superior cavalry. It was a blood bath for the cavalry. The hoplite line was unscathed while the majority of the cavalry, after the initial attack, were at some combination of 50% base loss, disrupted or fragmented. Only 2 out of 10 were steady / 100% strength.

Noting Richard's comment above that the lists allow optimal forces for tournament play and do allow lower grading for historical play, I looked through both books 1 and 3 to see how this worked out. In 5 out of 6 cases the "tournament" armoured superior cavalry can be downgraded for historical play. In only three cases do the list force the player to take armoured superior cavalry. These are Pontic, Early Persian and Alexandrian - a single BG for each.

So, my conclusion is that the rules might possible give a slightly higher chance to the cavalry but it's not a big issue and one that should only be considered after knowing what v2.0 will do, if anything about armour and the relative cheapness of superior troops - both topics already discussed at great length.

I'll stay out of the historical debate except for two points:

1) Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence
2) Reading all 4 volumes of Battles and Leaders of the Civil War (1st hand accounts by participants of the US Civil War) provides a very good lesson that people of the past did not write to provide an objective "scientific" reconstruction of an event but, shall we say, for other reasons. In some cases I'd read two different accounts of one battle but you'd only know that because of the titles.[/u]

[philqw78]

Ah, sense.

[ValentinianVictor]

I based it on Julians account of Singara and not Festus account.

Surely Libanius has the most detailed account - the one with Roman infantry side-stepping the charging cavalry - as opposed to Julian who mentions no material detail of the fighting at all?

Here is the account given by Julian of Singara, let the gentle reader make up their own mind-

`It was still the height of summer, and the legions mustered long before noon.
Since the enemy were awestruck by the discipline, accoutrements and calm bearing
of our troops, while to us they seemed amazing in numbers, neither side began
the battle; for they shrank from coming to close quarters with forces so well
equipped, while we waited for them to begin, so that in all respects we might
seem to be acting rather in self-defence, and not to be responsible for
beginning hostilities after the peace. But at last the leader of the barbarian
army (Sharpur II), raised high on their shields, perceived the magnitude of our
forces drawn up in line. What a change came over him! What exclamations he
uttered! He cried out that he had been betrayed, that it was the fault of those
who had persuaded him to go to war, and decided that the only thing to be done
was to flee with all speed, and that one course alone would secure his safety,
namely to cross, before we could reach it, the river, which is the ancient
boundary line between that country and ours. With this purpose he first gave the
signal for a retreat in good order, then gradually increasing his pace he
finally took to headlong flight, with only a small following of cavalry, and
left his whole army to the leadership of his son and the friend in whom he had
most confidence. When our men saw this they were enraged that the barbarians
should escape all punishment for their audacious conduct, and clamoured to be
led in pursuit, chafed at your order to half, and ran after the enemy in full
armour with their utmost energy and speed. For of your general ship they had had
no experience so far, and they could not believe that you were a better judge
than they of what was expedient. Moreover, under your father they had fought
many battles and had always been victorious, a fact that tended to make them
think themselves invincible. But they were most of all elated by the terror that
the Parthians now shewed, when they thought how they had fought, not only
against the enemy, but against the very nature of the ground, and if any greater
obstacle met them from some fresh quarter, they felt that they would overcome it
as well. Accordingly they ran at full speed for about one hundred stades, and
only halted when they came up with the Parthians, who had fled for shelter into
a fort that they had lately built to serve as a camp. It was, by this time,
evening, and they engaged battle forthwith. Our men at once took the fort and
slew its defenders. Once inside the fortifications they displayed great bravery
for a long time, but they were by this time fainting with thirst, and when they
found cisterns of water inside, they spoiled a glorious victory and gave the
enemy a chance to retrieve their defeat. This then was the issue of that battle,
which caused us the loss of only three or four of our men, whilst the Parthians
lost the heir to the throne who had previously been taken prisoner, together
with all of his escort. While all this was going on, of the leader of the
barbarians not even the ghost was to be seen, nor did he stay his flight till he
had put the river behind him. You, on the other hand, did not take of your
armour for a whole day and all the night, now sharing the struggles of those who
were getting the upper hand, now giving prompt and efficient aid to those who
were hard pressed. And by your bravery and fortitude, you so changed the face of
the battle that at break of day the enemy were glad to beat a safe retreat to
their own territory, and even the wounded, escorted by you, could retire from
the battle. Thus did you relive them all from the risks of flight.'

This appears to be the same Second Singara mentioned by Festus-

27.1. Constantius fought against the Persians with mixed and more difficult outcome. Besides the light skirmishes of excubantes on the border, there were fiercer contests of Mars nine times, through his generals seven times; he himself was present twice. In fact, at the battles of Sisara (Siege), Singara (Siege) and the second battle of Singara (Field Battle)(where Constantius was present), and Sicgara (Siege) (also Constantian (Siege)) and when Amida (Siege) was captured, the republic took a serious wound under this prince. 2. And on three occasions Nisibis (All Sieges) was besieged by the Persians, but the enemy was affected by greater loss on his own side while he besieged. But in the battle of Narasara (Field Battle) , where Narseus was killed, we departed the better off. 3. However, in the night battle of Elia near Singara (This is the second Singara mentioned above, so not a separate battle), when Constantius was present, the outcome of all the campaigns would have been balanced, if with the ground and the night unfavourable, the emperor had been able to call back soldiers, who had been whipped to a frenzy, from fighting at an inopportune time. 4. Although they were unconquered in strength, with supplies of water against their thirst unforeseen, and evening now coming on, they attacked the camp of the Persians and having broken the defences occupied it, and with the king having been put to flight, while resting from battle they were panting to find water, with torches held before them: they were overwhelmed by a cloud of arrows, since they themselves stupidly provided lights shining through the night so that they could be aimed at more accurately.