Your Favourite army

[nikgaukroger]

However, there is no evidence of Scots using deep formations as the Swiss did. As Pikes in AoW (like most other ancients/medieval rules) are designed to fight in formations much deeper than other troops

They are?

When did that happen? Alex usualy deployed his 8 deep - just like hoplites.

Ah, a typical Mike statement

If you can convicence Duncan of that I'll be impressed. IIRC the only stated case is Issos where they were expanding from a deeper (32 rank IIRC) formation to fill a plain and this is quite possibly atypical. The Hellenistic manuals say 16 deep and I seem to recall something about the file being called the dekas which may suggest 10 deep was used originally by Phillip.

Swiss fought deep, but I've not seen anything that says that the pikes were designed for that - they started fighting deep with halberds after all, and went to pikes 'cos the halberds were supposedly outreached by hte lances of dismounted knights!

Apologies, used "pike" a bit loosly there as I meant pikemen the troop type and assumed the context made it clear.

Later renaissance pikes fought as shallow as 2-3 ranks.

Sure many pikes DID fight deep, but I think it's a fairly tall tale to be spreading that that is what they were designed for!

Later renaissance ... by which I assume you mean C17th as I believe earlier formations were consistently deeper. So hardly a useful model I would suggest.

[SMK-at-work]

OK - ignore teh 8 deep crack and focus on the "jsut as deep as hoplites" - would you take Luke U-S's analysis - you can see it for Granicus at http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson ... Notes.html - basically pikes formed up just as deep as hoplites did, hence the pike cannot be seen to have been a wweapon that was "designed" to be used in deep formations.

My point about later "renaissance" pikemen is simply to show that eth pike was not something that had to be used in deep formations - nothing more.

However I'd be interested in how AoW treats those Byzantine spearmen with their extremely long spears who formed 8 or 16 deep according to the manuals (or so I'm told).

[nikgaukroger]

Luke's stuff is, of course, very good. However, I believe that AoW is staying with the traditional view - following Duncan I would expect.

FWIW I am personally doubtful about the accepted "fact" that the Makedonian phalanx was a superior melee formation that the older hoplite one - I see it as a way of getting something equivalent to hoplites without needing a hoplite class.

The Byzantine spearmen with the very long spears are treated as Defensive Spearmen with some archers as well. The manuals - mainly the Strategikon, of course, have them in formations from 4 to 16 ranks deep with, IIRC, 8 plus 2 of archers as the good all round one. Importantly they are defensive formations and so the AoW Defensive Spearmen appears to work out best - a bit of a compromise here maybe, but it should get the army right as it will emphasise the cavalry as the main arm.

[SMK-at-work]

I completely agree with your position on pikemen being a cheaper way of getting something equivalent to hoplites without having to reorganise society in order to do so - remembering that hoplites represent a social class whereas pikemen were recruited from anywhere.

Note that I'm not arguing that pieks are not MORE useful in deep formations - but rather the point that pikes were DESIGNED for deep formations. I dont' see the later as being the case at all - IMO they used the same formations that were "standard" for other infantry at the time they were introduced - be it in the 4thC BC, or the 14th and subsequent ones AD.

[lentulus]

My favourite armies are late 15th and early 16th century Italian. Not for any particular efficiency, but because I enjoy the historical association.

[caliban66]

Hoplites, specially teban, used even deeper formations, up to 25 men deep, even before Epaninonda, who used deeper formation, and represents the end of the hoplite era.
Anyway, I think Alexander had to deploy 8 ranked pikemen in order to enlarge his battleline, since persian army used to be much bigger. Extending the battleline too much put his left wing at risk during the battle of Gaugamela. Weren??t they organized in 16x16 men.

[whitehorses]

Interestingly...

Exactly the best tactic against them in AOW....works due to the missile fire rules causing DISR on the spearmen and then charging them can work.

Si

What's the Feudal English army like in AoW, since the (1272-1377) era of the 3 Edwards was principally involved in the Scottish Wars?
Knights - Undrilled, Lance-armed, Armoured & Average
Welsh Archers - Undrilled, Longbows, Armoured, Average, Swords
Foot - various Spears, undrilled, Average/Poor, Armoured.


Cheers,
Jer

We have not done the list yet, but according to general policy, most likely the knights would be Superior. (Not superior to other knights, you understand, Superior to the plebs). They would be heavily armoured (from about 1150 or so onwards), lancers, swordsmen. The archers and other foot mostly Protected rather than Armoured, with Unprotected at least as an option for the archers;

More along the lines of helmets & neck armour as opposed to chain mail for protection? Makes sense IMO since the Knights were Numero Uno & it took the Scottish Wars & the 100 Years War to teach them that they need Longbowmen & Foot too.
Interestingly the best troops in the Scottish wars were the Knights & the Welsh Longbows & Spearmen, why by all accounts seem to be a very aggressive bunch. The Knights were impetuous but if they got in could create merry havoc.
However, it seems that the English Knights also dismounted some, if not all during Edward 1's Scottish Wars, & his grandson continued this during the 100 Years war. I think Edward II left them mounted for the most part though.
What was the practice during Edward's Welsh Campaign? Any thoughts?


Cheers,
Jer

[vtsaogames]

My favorite army is the Mongol army of Ghengis Khan and Sabutai. In the DBX games these guys get short shrift, since they don't have distant missile shooting. I should think the main point of a horse archer army is the ability to hurt your foe without reply and hopefully goading the enemy into doing something rash.

Also, the Mongols differed from other steppe nomad horse archer armies by being trained and discplined. Again, DBX does not make a big difference for discipline and training, other than superior/ordinary/inferior. I think this is really the divide that makes all the difference in armies.

For example (wandering off-topic) the English win almost every battle in the Hundred Years War until Joan of Arc appeared and then they lost almost every battle. The weapons systems didn't change very much. What did? The French learned to follow orders - something the English did from the start. Once they learned that and Joan picked up their spirits, they won again and again. The difference was discipline.

Back on topic, the Mongols of Ghengis should differ form the garden variety steppe army because of discipline.

[rbodleyscott]

My favorite army is the Mongol army of Ghengis Khan and Sabutai. In the DBX games these guys get short shrift, since they don't have distant missile shooting. I should think the main point of a horse archer army is the ability to hurt your foe without reply and hopefully goading the enemy into doing something rash.

Also, the Mongols differed from other steppe nomad horse archer armies by being trained and discplined. Again, DBX does not make a big difference for discipline and training, other than superior/ordinary/inferior. I think this is really the divide that makes all the difference in armies.

Back on topic, the Mongols of Ghengis should differ form the garden variety steppe army because of discipline.

In AoW they do, and of course they can do all the things you mention above.

Today I fought a battle with a Mongol army against Hungarians. Half-way through the battle we discovered that, due to a calculation error, the Hungarians had 900 points of troops when I only had 800 points.

Neverthless the Mongols won decisively, using their superior discipline and the techniques you mention above.

[shall]

For example (wandering off-topic) the English win almost every battle in the Hundred Years War until Joan of Arc appeared and then they lost almost every battle. The weapons systems didn't change very much. What did? The French learned to follow orders - something the English did from the start. Once they learned that and Joan picked up their spirits, they won again and again. The difference was discipline.

And the French led by an Inspired Commander - which represents Joan - will be pretty tough to face as well.

Si

[whitehorses]

For example (wandering off-topic) the English win almost every battle in the Hundred Years War until Joan of Arc appeared and then they lost almost every battle. The weapons systems didn't change very much. What did? The French learned to follow orders - something the English did from the start. Once they learned that and Joan picked up their spirits, they won again and again. The difference was discipline.

And the French led by an Inspired Commander - which represents Joan - will be pretty tough to face as well.

Si

Well they had Bombards as well, which the English didn't start using until it was too late. Like the debacle at Castillon with Talbot leading England's last Hurrah....
But AoW will see the French Maid facing the cream of Feudal England under Edward III & the Black Prince


Cheers,
Jer

[benny]

Basically Scots fight more like Scots if rated as Spears. Function based not overly equipment based representation remember

So is this saying that AoW treats Scots spears pretty much like Greek hoplites?

[larrydunn]

However, there is no evidence of Scots using deep formations as the Swiss did. As Pikes in AoW (like most other ancients/medieval rules) are designed to fight in formations much deeper than other troops if troops like the Scots are rated as Pikes they will end up fighting in unhistoiurcally deep formations and thus the historicality of the rules representation is weaker. AoW doesn't want to make the same mistakes on this as other rules do.

If that's true, then it should equally be true that Low Countries guildmen are spearmen rather than pikemen, because they fought eight ranks deep. (Scots are usually said to have fought six deep.) But then again, both Scots and Lowlanders used a spear much longer than that of, say, a hoplite, and they were as deep as they were because they generally deployed defensively, in all-round formations. They did this because they were not trained to fight deeper than that on the offensive. This is what makes the Swiss different -- their pike formations could move and bring all those spearheads to bear on the offense.

(Although it should be noted that, when faced by lesser opponents (ie, someone other than massed gendarmes or enemy pikes), the Swiss deployed shallow too -- 3-4 ranks deep. Seminara is an example, when they formed three deep and rolled over the Spanish rodoleros and crossbowmen.)

Hence my suggestion that undrilled pikes fight like pikes when on the defense -- both the Scots and the Lowlanders on the defense were pretty much unbreakable when assaulted by close combat. (Opponents had to shoot holes in their formations in order to make an impression.) This would permit them to behave as they did historically, which as you say is what should be modeled. What I'm suggesting is that the longer spear and the proven defensive prowess of the scottish spear and the Lowland geldon be modeled as they fought. So they (let's call them undrilled pikemen) defend with pike bonuses and attack like long spearmen.

More on Lowland spearmen, and the suggestion that even on the attack they are better modeled as pikes than spears, later ....

[nikgaukroger]

However, there is no evidence of Scots using deep formations as the Swiss did. As Pikes in AoW (like most other ancients/medieval rules) are designed to fight in formations much deeper than other troops if troops like the Scots are rated as Pikes they will end up fighting in unhistoiurcally deep formations and thus the historicality of the rules representation is weaker. AoW doesn't want to make the same mistakes on this as other rules do.

If that's true, then it should equally be true that Low Countries guildmen are spearmen rather than pikemen, because they fought eight ranks deep. (Scots are usually said to have fought six deep.) But then again, both Scots and Lowlanders used a spear much longer than that of, say, a hoplite, and they were as deep as they were because they generally deployed defensively, in all-round formations. They did this because they were not trained to fight deeper than that on the offensive. This is what makes the Swiss different -- their pike formations could move and bring all those spearheads to bear on the offense.

Low Countries are so classified you will be glad to hear.

[nikgaukroger]

Basically Scots fight more like Scots if rated as Spears. Function based not overly equipment based representation remember

So is this saying that AoW treats Scots spears pretty much like Greek hoplites?

Pretty much. Although I'm sure we'll be interested in what Larry has to say and that may yet change things - in an infinite universe anything is possible

[benny]

Basically Scots fight more like Scots if rated as Spears. Function based not overly equipment based representation remember

So is this saying that AoW treats Scots spears pretty much like Greek hoplites?

Pretty much. Although I'm sure we'll be interested in what Larry has to say and that may yet change things - in an infinite universe anything is possible

Both Scots and Greeks both fought opponents (English & Persians) who relied heavily on massed foot archers yet the results were quite different. If Herodotus is to be believed, Persian archery was pretty ineffective against hoplites yet English/Welsh archery was a major problem for the Scots. The difference wasn't the knights as the English archers continued to be effective even after their MoA began dismounting.

Without access to the rules, I can't comment about what other tools AoW has to sort this discrepency out (size of shield, amount & type of armour, long bow vs composite bow differences?) but my superficial view is that equating Scots with Greeks isn't the best way to start

[abivor]

Free Company - for some reason it strikes a chord deep within me, so perhaps you'd better lock up your daughters and hide your wallet when I come to town!
I don't know how the Free Company list is progressing in AoW, but the DBM list always seemed a little odd in only allowing 'crud' in the very late version for 1444. I'm going to have to go away and look up stuff now for sources but I would have expected every piece of low life to attach itself to a bunch of bandits - routiers, brigans et al.

Merovingian Franks - I confess to having been the writer of this list (as Middle Frankish) for DBM based largely on Gregory of Tours. Lots of armies ravaging France again - there is a theme developing here?

Khazars - just for the sheer oddness. A strange misty history that appeals to me. Some details recorded by (I think from memory) Donaldson who was used by Koestler for his 'Thirteenth Tribe'. He drew his details largely from Arabic sources such as Ibn Fahd (my spelling probably off tonight). In particular the description of the Royal Army as Khorasanian has caused many an argument. Some (I seem to recall RBS being one) arguing for Arab style lancers while others (inc yours truly) for primarily bow armed armoured cavalry.

Commagene - because it has always looked so crap and yet I have found it one of my more successful (or is that less unsuccessful) armies.

The army of Antigonos Gonatos - no my knees don't knock together!

and so many more..............

[shall]

nikgaukroger wrote:
benny wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote:

Basically Scots fight more like Scots if rated as Spears. Function based not overly equipment based representation remember



So is this saying that AoW treats Scots spears pretty much like Greek hoplites?



Pretty much. Although I'm sure we'll be interested in what Larry has to say and that may yet change things - in an infinite universe anything is possible



Both Scots and Greeks both fought opponents (English & Persians) who relied heavily on massed foot archers yet the results were quite different. If Herodotus is to be believed, Persian archery was pretty ineffective against hoplites yet English/Welsh archery was a major problem for the Scots. The difference wasn't the knights as the English archers continued to be effective even after their MoA began dismounting.

Without access to the rules, I can't comment about what other tools AoW has to sort this discrepency out (size of shield, amount & type of armour, long bow vs composite bow differences?) but my superficial view is that equating Scots with Greeks isn't the best way to start

Not quite true. Hoplites and Scots are about the same once in combat. The classic Greek Hoplite I imagine being hard to break down with bowfire is drilled and armoured when the scots are undrilled and portected. Its very very hard to DISR an armoured foot unit with bowfire. Also the drilled has a big effect on how well you can get them in vs bowmen. So the net result is that the scots are much more vulnerable to bowfire. The longbow is another issue - more effective than bowfire vs armoured targets - so if the classic hoplite faces longbow it may have problems that are similar - and perhaps would have done.

Some of the less classic and lower quality hoplites will be undrilled and protected and these are the same.

Si

[benny]

Not quite true. Hoplites and Scots are about the same once in combat. The classic Greek Hoplite I imagine being hard to break down with bowfire is drilled and armoured when the scots are undrilled and portected. Its very very hard to DISR an armoured foot unit with bowfire. Also the drilled has a big effect on how well you can get them in vs bowmen. So the net result is that the scots are much more vulnerable to bowfire. The longbow is another issue - more effective than bowfire vs armoured targets - so if the classic hoplite faces longbow it may have problems that are similar - and perhaps would have done.

Some of the less classic and lower quality hoplites will be undrilled and protected and these are the same.

Si

I don't know the AoW definition of 'Drilled' but it would have to be pretty loose and wide ranging to include any hoplites of the Marathon/Palatea era other than Spartans. And if AoW 'armoured' requires metallic protection then you need to be aware that this was little used by hoplites, the vast majority relying on leather or linen corselets.

And as for longbows being more effective than composite bows against armoured targets........well I thought that was a "wargaming myth" that had been dispelled 20 years ago. Any Ottoman Turks out there want to come into bat for the Janisseries?

At the risk of being seen as a perpetual knocker, I'm not finding some of these answers particularly encouraging

Benny

[rbodleyscott]

I don't know the AoW definition of 'Drilled' but it would have to be pretty loose and wide ranging to include any hoplites of the Marathon/Palatea era other than Spartans. And if AoW 'armoured' requires metallic protection then you need to be aware that this was little used by hoplites, the vast majority relying on leather or linen corselets.

Absolutely. Simon is only peripherally involved in the list writing process and in this case has mis-remembered the lists. Hoplites are mostly undrilled. They tend to be Armoured until the middle of the 5th century BC and Protected therafter. The ones fighting the Persians in Greece would mostly be graded as Armoured.

And as for longbows being more effective than composite bows against armoured targets........well I thought that was a "wargaming myth" that had been dispelled 20 years ago. Any Ottoman Turks out there want to come into bat for the Janisseries?

The degree to which longbows were "better" than other bows (or not) has been a subject of much debate, and there are a range of opinions. We have attempted to take a middle ground position in AoW. They are certainly not super-troops in AoW but we have given them some advantages. These would not in fact affect their interaction with Ottoman troops if you were to fight a "what-if" battle between English and Ottomans.