Slitherine

mbsparta wrote:Today I had a 4 stand BG of MRR Roman cavalry charge into a disrupted BG of 8 Pyrrhic pike. The end result of the combat was a broken phalanx of pike that just happened to lead to the Roman victory. So based on this example I would argue that yes, ancient cavalry in FoG are overpowered.

Given that we don't have a massive amount to go on, we have to take a guess at what is most likely that occured.

The only plausible theory is that a frontal cavalry charge broke the infantry. Sorry if that doesn't fit in with your thoughts.

ValentinianVictor wrote:"But they aren't. Can you provide evidence of infantry duffing up Cavalry?"

Don't you read anything people post Dave?
Have you not read Julian's description of the Battle of Singara? And what of the Battle of Narasara as described by Festus and others? How about Ammianus' description of the Battles of Ctesiphon and Maranga? And what about the two defeats Galerius inflicted on Narseh? All these battles were infantry heavy armies defeating cavalry heavy armies.

"What about the 17 Sung Cavalry who killed several thousand infantry?"

The other side of the coin is this, taken from Rance- At the battle of Callinicum in 531 'a small force of infantry and dismounted cavalry covered the Roman retreat in a manner strikingly reminiscent of Maurice’s foËlkon:the infantry, and few of them indeed, were fighting against the whole Persian cavalry. Nevertheless, the enemy could neither rout them nor otherwise overpower them. For constantly massed together shoulder-to-shoulder into a small space, and forming with their shields a very strong barrier, they shot at the Persians more conveniently than they were shot at by them. Frequently withdrawing, the Persians would advance against them so as to break up and destroy their line, but retired again unsuccessful.
Holding firm in the face of charging cavalry was one of the most psychologically demanding tasks for infantry; not only was late Roman infantry capable of standing up to cavalry attacks but deterring cavalry was actually one of its primary functions. On the sixth-century battlefield infantry retained an important, albeit more passive role, serving principally as a firm bulwark'

And yet another example, again from Rance- 'Narses’ deployment against the Ostrogoths at Taginae in 552 offers the most conspicuous example, but for the present purposes the preliminaries to the battle are of greater interest than the main engagement. These centred on a strategic hillock to the left of the Roman line, of which both sides sought control. Narses committed to its defence just fifty regular Roman infantry, who positioned themselves along a watercourse running at its base. There they defied the repeated attempts of increasingly larger numbers of Ostrogothic cavalry to dislodge them. Procopius’ description is worth quoting at length, since although the word foËlkon was alien to his classicising vocabulary this is again clearly what he describes:
the fifty took up their position, standing shoulder to shoulder and deployed in the form of a phalanx as well as the limited
space permitted … The horsemen accordingly charged upon them with great tumult and shouting, intending to capture them at the first cry, but the Romans deployed together into a small space and forming a barrier with their shields and thrusting forward their spears, held their ground … By shoving with their shields and by the protection of their spears, which were dense but nowhere tangled, they defended themselves as steadfastly as possible against their assailants; and they purposely made a din with their shields, terrifying the horses, on the one hand, and the men on the other, with the points of their spears. And the horses became excited, because they were greatly troubled by the rough ground and the din of the shields, and also because they could not get through anywhere, while the men at the same time
were gradually worn down, fighting as they were with men packed so tightly together and not giving an inch of ground'

There are other examples, but the above serve just as well.

dave_r wrote:

ValentinianVictor wrote:"But they aren't. Can you provide evidence of infantry duffing up Cavalry?"

Don't you read anything people post Dave?
Have you not read Julian's description of the Battle of Singara? And what of the Battle of Narasara as described by Festus and others? How about Ammianus' description of the Battles of Ctesiphon and Maranga? And what about the two defeats Galerius inflicted on Narseh? All these battles were infantry heavy armies defeating cavalry heavy armies.

And did you read the response to those Adrian? Julian's description of Singara tells us nothing apart from that Julian was a masterful leader and was absolutely brilliant. Who wrote this account again? I seem to recall the other accounts being somewhat disputed as well.

nikgaukroger wrote:

dave_r wrote:

ValentinianVictor wrote:"But they aren't. Can you provide evidence of infantry duffing up Cavalry?"

Don't you read anything people post Dave?
Have you not read Julian's description of the Battle of Singara? And what of the Battle of Narasara as described by Festus and others? How about Ammianus' description of the Battles of Ctesiphon and Maranga? And what about the two defeats Galerius inflicted on Narseh? All these battles were infantry heavy armies defeating cavalry heavy armies.

And did you read the response to those Adrian? Julian's description of Singara tells us nothing apart from that Julian was a masterful leader and was absolutely brilliant. Who wrote this account again? I seem to recall the other accounts being somewhat disputed as well.

Well here we have a comedy of errors from Adrian and Dave. The highlights:

Adrian - it is Labianus' account that has useful details of Singara not Julian's which has more or less nothing.

Dave - Julian did not command at Singara he was writing a panegyric about Constantius II, plus Ammianus has accounts where Roman infantry clearly beat Sasanid cavalry in a straight fight.

ValentinianVictor wrote: I can only say from my part that the only accounts I have are from Festus, Eutropus, Zosimos, Sozemon, Socrates etc, I cannot find Libanius account of Singara in either Vol 1 or Vol 2 of the Loeb Libanius Orations. I would welcome being pointed at which Libanius translation I need to seek out.

ValentinianVictor wrote:"Well here we have a comedy of errors from Adrian and Dave. The highlights:

Adrian - it is Labianus' account that has useful details of Singara not Julian's which has more or less nothing.

Dave - Julian did not command at Singara he was writing a panegyric about Constantius II, plus Ammianus has accounts where oman infantry clearly beat Sasanid cavalry in a straight fight."

I can only say from my part that the only accounts I have are from Festus, Eutropus, Zosimos, Sozemon, Socrates etc, I cannot find Libanius account of Singara in either Vol 1 or Vol 2 of the Loeb Libanius Orations. I would welcome being pointed at which Libanius translation I need to seek out.

And I don't think that Dave took on board that the other quotations from Rance related to full scale battles where part of the Roman force was attacked, not to skirmishes.

nikgaukroger wrote:

ValentinianVictor wrote: I can only say from my part that the only accounts I have are from Festus, Eutropus, Zosimos, Sozemon, Socrates etc, I cannot find Libanius account of Singara in either Vol 1 or Vol 2 of the Loeb Libanius Orations. I would welcome being pointed at which Libanius translation I need to seek out.

Dodgeon & Lieu.

dave_r wrote: What is your point though Adrian - where does the game not match your quotations?

ValentinianVictor wrote:
Thanks Nik.
Just read the relevant Libanius translation in Dodgeon & Lieu. All I can say is that its essentially the same account given by Festus and Julian (I'm surprised they dont mention Julian's account),

the only difference being that Libanius states the Romans chased the Sasanids for 150 stades, he makes more mention of the troops types at the battle, and he credits Constantius with winning the battle of Singara.

nikgaukroger wrote:

dave_r wrote: What is your point though Adrian - where does the game not match your quotations?

How would he know, he doesn't play FoG.

dave_r wrote:
Its a real pity when those "historians" who have a bee in their bonnet attempt to influence a game that they have never played or play very infrequently. Other rulesets have suffered massive problems because of this issue.

david53 wrote:

dave_r wrote:
Its a real pity when those "historians" who have a bee in their bonnet attempt to influence a game that they have never played or play very infrequently. Other rulesets have suffered massive problems because of this issue.

I think there are many people on here who read the histories and do play the game, that this would'nt happen in the FOG ruleset.

pezhetairoi wrote:@shadowdragon
Well greetings. I didn't notice that we are neighbours! That explains why I find you so polite, eh?

pezhetairoi wrote:I have been using the Persian armoured superior bow/sword -cavalry exactly as you described -- shoot until you get a disrupt, then charge in. It works like a charm (usually) with very little risk. That I don't have a problem with. Their advantage is portable missile fire, and if they are patient they can get lucky with good dice and a bad CT from their opponent. It feels right. The tactic has a lot of historical backing. In fact it could have been used at the Thates river (ahem!).

pezhetairoi wrote:I am a little unhappy with the fact that the same 4 bases of cavalry can charge 6 bases of STEADY protected spearmen with an approx 50/50 chance of success.

shadowdragon wrote:

pezhetairoi wrote:@shadowdragon
Well greetings. I didn't notice that we are neighbours! That explains why I find you so polite, eh?

Politeness and forebearance are essential traits for effective, electronic text communication where you don't have the benefit of auditory and visual cues. It's not so much from being Canadian as from bitter experience.

shadowdragon wrote:

shadowdragon wrote:

pezhetairoi wrote:@shadowdragon
Well greetings. I didn't notice that we are neighbours! That explains why I find you so polite, eh?

Politeness and forebearance are essential traits for effective, electronic text communication where you don't have the benefit of auditory and visual cues. It's not so much from being Canadian as from bitter experience.

To understand the distortion of text only communication, rumour has it that in "real life" dave_r is a loveable, diplomatic sort.

dave_r wrote:

shadowdragon wrote:

shadowdragon wrote: Politeness and forebearance are essential traits for effective, electronic text communication where you don't have the benefit of auditory and visual cues. It's not so much from being Canadian as from bitter experience.

To understand the distortion of text only communication, rumour has it that in "real life" dave_r is a loveable, diplomatic sort.

Lies. All of it.