Slitherine

msuspartan wrote:As a matter of fact, Huscarls WERE HF.

But they can also be classed as MF according to the Anglo Dane list.

It is certainly true in the Classical drill manuals that have survived that troops would normally have been trained to be able to operate in different frontages per man, i.e. in looser or closer order. It would seem reasonable to assume that most troops, at least drilled ones, should be given the option to operate as the equivalent of the current HF or MF. (Pikes and some Spearmen would seem like a possible exception.)

Judging from Polybius account of Alexander's approach to Issus and by analogy with how troops behaved in the 18th and 19 century, it would seem like this sort of change in formation could occur during the course of an engagement.

Chris

The problem with the Roman's is that they do not fit nicely into categories.
Take Roman Legionarii of the Late Roman period. We have accounts in Ammianus of 'Legionarii expediti' i.e. light armed troops. Probably used for raids and where fast movement was required, such as Sebastian taking 300 men from each unit to act as a fast strike force against the Goth's just before the Battle of Adrianopolis in 378AD. Then we have Ammianus talking of troops throwing various missiles before combat- Pilis, Verriculum, Veruta, Hasta, Hastarum, Lancea, Tela etc, implying that they then charged in with the sword, which further battle descriptions by him backs up with accounts of victorious Romans hacking at the backs of fleeing 'barbarians' with their swords. Then we have several accounts of Romans fighting in what can only be described as 'shield walls', with one account, at the Battle of Adrianopolis again, stating that the Legiones Lanciarii and Mattarii retained their spears for so long that 'they became broken through repeated blows'.

I personally believe that by at least the 350's AD there was no real difference in the arms, equipment and fighting styles between the Legionarii and the Auxilia, the only real difference being that conditions of service in the Auxilia were less harsh and they were not expected to undertake engineering works or build marching camps etc.

VV wrote:The problem with the Roman's is that they do not fit nicely into categories.

Do other foot fit any better? And that is my whole point. It doesn't take the brains of an archbishop to spread out a bit. Why do we even need a different Heavy and Medium foot.

philqw78 wrote:

VV wrote:The problem with the Roman's is that they do not fit nicely into categories.

Do other foot fit any better? And that is my whole point. It doesn't take the brains of an archbishop to spread out a bit. Why do we even need a different Heavy and Medium foot.

I'd agree apart from the fact some Late Roman artistic evidence has what appears to be unarmoured infantry with large spears and shields on various monuments that historians have considered to be Auxilia rather than Legionarii as most monumental and pictorial depictions of Legionarii show them in armour.

Does MF Really Exist

.......... Probably not.

Mike B

ValentinianVictor wrote:I'd agree apart from the fact some Late Roman artistic evidence has what appears to be unarmoured infantry with large spears and shields on various monuments that historians have considered to be Auxilia rather than Legionarii as most monumental and pictorial depictions of Legionarii show them in armour.

But that is just a difference in armour. The rules give armoured medium foot and unarmoured medium foot. Why not just armoured or unarmoured Battle Foot.

Does MF Really Exist

If what is being measured is degree to which they sacrifice thier density of normal fighting formation with speed and manouver flexibility then of course they do. As do medium light foot and heavy medium foot. Its all matter of granularity of the measure ment.

Its like arguing "does a size 2 foot exist or are they all size 1 or 3".

anthony

expendablecinc wrote:Does MF Really Exist

If what is being measured is degree to which they sacrifice thier density of normal fighting formation with speed and manouver flexibility then of course they do. As do medium light foot and heavy medium foot. Its all matter of granularity of the measure ment.

That's pretty much going by the old WRG approach. Does not really fit in FoG as MF is not described to be in a less dense formation compared to HF and a lot of what's currently classed as MF actually did have the same formation density as HF. They are just classed as MF to simulate their susceptibility to mounted or their preference for rough terrain. Fine in theory, but why does that generate different movement rates and combat disadvantages vs. similar foot classed as HF for one reason or another?