Slitherine

"Caesar, having accomplished the object which he had in view, ordered the signal to be sounded for a retreat; and the soldiers of the tenth legion, by which he was then accompanied, halted.

Since this quote refers to the legion being halted, does it imply that they must have pursued for a short distance (i,e, initial pursuit phase) and then halted ? - which they can do in FoG.
An elite BG led by the CinC would stand a good chance of halting in the JAP, but other BG's with no commander would be more diffficult to halt.

terrys wrote:

"Caesar, having accomplished the object which he had in view, ordered the signal to be sounded for a retreat; and the soldiers of the tenth legion, by which he was then accompanied, halted.

Since this quote refers to the legion being halted, does it imply that they must have pursued for a short distance (i,e, initial pursuit phase) and then halted ? - which they can do in FoG.
An elite BG led by the CinC would stand a good chance of halting in the JAP, but other BG's with no commander would be more diffficult to halt.

Are you saying there is no historical case for troops not holding position when the enemy breaks off or routs? The Legion pursuing a small distance and then being called to a halt could also be one of those lovely "the move distance is not enough to be represented in the FoG rules" if one passes a test.

I don't see the problem with giving troops a chance to test NOT to pursue.

Are you saying there is no historical case for troops not holding position when the enemy breaks off or routs?

Can you provide one?

If you throw a one on your VMD as heavy foot you will only move an inch - which is I think akin to standing still and watching your opponent run away.

Just to complicate the rules you could allow generals to subtract from the VMD roll. -2 for an IC, -1 for others

dave_r wrote:

Are you saying there is no historical case for troops not holding position when the enemy breaks off or routs?

Can you provide one?

If you throw a one on your VMD as heavy foot you will only move an inch - which is I think akin to standing still and watching your opponent run away.

These are off the top of head sitting here at work. I'm sure I could do allot better at home with some books in front of me.

If you read the OP post he gives an example. If I recall they charged up that hill into that shield wall for the better part of the day before they broke formation and gave chase.

How about some of the famous battles of the HYW, I'm pretty sure the French were, in FoG terms, broken by the combination of the archers softening up and the men at arms in melee. I don't recall anything about the men at arms charging across the mud pits to chase them down.

At Gaugamela Alexander broke through a gap, forcing Darius to flee and instead of pursuing him he turned his companions to support his infantry who was in a tad of trouble.

I recall something about some Spartans, fighting in a little ravine near the hot springs dedicated to the Goddess Persefone, breaking the enemy and repeatedly holding their position.

Throwing a one on a VMD has nothing to do with troops being drilled or undrilled. This happens one out of six times you take a VMD, and drilled troops have as much of a chance to roll a one to go slow or a six to go fast as undrilled.

I'm not saying that troops didn't often pursue broken troops, or troops pretending to be broken, I'm just saying that certain troops should get a chance to avoid it if they so choose.

It is also worth nothing that drilled infantry are quite adept at backing up before contact is made. As long as the enemy are out of charge range you can make a 180 degree turn (which is a simple move) then move away essentially indefinitely (as long as the enemy aren't faster) and then turn 180 again at the time of your choosing to fight. Undrilled troops are advised to avoid this tactic...

In terms of the Bretons on Senlac hill - well no-one actually proved that a feigned flight was the case did they? Once again - history being written by the winners. Lets face it, that shieldwall stood all day long and damn near won the battle. If it wasnt for the 'feigned flight' according to some sources, the battle for England would possibly have finished there! Poor impetuous Saxon boys got their blood up that's all! Mind you, had the Saxons won, we would never have had Robin Hodd would we? ...What? he's not real!?? Oh Poo.

we would never have had Robin Hodd

The legendary brick layer

If I recall they charged up that hill into that shield wall for the better part of the day before they broke formation and gave chase

Well, they did charge down after them - so why did they do that? We are often trying to cram a full days battle into a few minutes so there has to be some speeding up of time!

At Gaugamela Alexander broke through a gap, forcing Darius to flee and instead of pursuing him he turned his companions to support his infantry who was in a tad of trouble.

Well, he broke the stuff in front of him - but who is to say he didn't purse for a bit stop and then decide what to do?

Throwing a one on a VMD has nothing to do with troops being drilled or undrilled. This happens one out of six times you take a VMD, and drilled troops have as much of a chance to roll a one to go slow or a six to go fast as undrilled.

Yeah, but given the example in the OP was about Saxons (undrilled) then I think it is a valid argument

I'm not saying that troops didn't often pursue broken troops, or troops pretending to be broken, I'm just saying that certain troops should get a chance to avoid it if they so choose.

It would make them too good in game terms. I think saying drilled troops don't have to pursue is just taking a step too far. We don't have anywhere near the number of examples of troops breaking their opponent and then standing still as opposed to troops breaking their opponent and then running after them! There is an exception to every rule, but we don't need to change half the troops on the table because of one example!!!

dave_r wrote:

If I recall they charged up that hill into that shield wall for the better part of the day before they broke formation and gave chase

Well, they did charge down after them - so why did they do that? We are often trying to cram a full days battle into a few minutes so there has to be some speeding up of time!

At Gaugamela Alexander broke through a gap, forcing Darius to flee and instead of pursuing him he turned his companions to support his infantry who was in a tad of trouble.

Well, he broke the stuff in front of him - but who is to say he didn't purse for a bit stop and then decide what to do?

Throwing a one on a VMD has nothing to do with troops being drilled or undrilled. This happens one out of six times you take a VMD, and drilled troops have as much of a chance to roll a one to go slow or a six to go fast as undrilled.

Yeah, but given the example in the OP was about Saxons (undrilled) then I think it is a valid argument

I'm not saying that troops didn't often pursue broken troops, or troops pretending to be broken, I'm just saying that certain troops should get a chance to avoid it if they so choose.

It would make them too good in game terms. I think saying drilled troops don't have to pursue is just taking a step too far. We don't have anywhere near the number of examples of troops breaking their opponent and then standing still as opposed to troops breaking their opponent and then running after them! There is an exception to every rule, but we don't need to change half the troops on the table because of one example!!!

You asked me for historical examples and I gave them. You really have not offered anything to the thread in your reply.

As far as your last paragraph, if you actually read what I said I proposed that Drilled troops should be allowed to TEST not to pursue. I honestly don't care if it's allowed for all troops (with Drilled getting a bonus of course). Unlike the breakoff rule it does not complicate the game at all, and again it's supported in many historical battles.

I don't really have an opinion on the central issue, but since you folks are citing Hastings as an example, I wanted to point out that our knowledge of this battle is very, very limited.

Basically, 99% of everything we know (or think we know) about Hastings is from studying the Bayeaux tapestry. And the Bayeaux has labels on the various panels, yes, but the characters do not wear nametags. The action is not always clear, and the information derived from the tapestry is by no means as unequivocal as they make it out to be in school.

Then there is the interesting fact that the tapestry apparently once contained more panels, which are now missing. The last panel remaining appears to deal with the death of Harold Godwineson, but who knows how that might change if the next panel were available to be viewed?

Try this exercise. Think of your favorite action novel or movie. Recall to yourself the climactic action sequence. Pick an arbitrary point at or near the height of the action. Now ask yourself how different the book/film might seem if it had ended abruptly at that point.

My point is simply that we don't know that much about the battle. We have commonly-accepted theories, based on limited data. Yes, this is true of most historical battles, but Hastings was such an incredibly important, history-changing event.

***edit***

Oh yeah, and be cool with each other here, guys. If you get to feuding, they'll lock the thread, and it's a shame to see a good topic end that way

possum wrote:
Basically, 99% of everything we know (or think we know) about Hastings is from studying the Bayeaux tapestry.

Well that and the 4 or 5 written accounts ...

nikgaukroger wrote:

possum wrote:
Basically, 99% of everything we know (or think we know) about Hastings is from studying the Bayeaux tapestry.

Well that and the 4 or 5 written accounts ...

Almost all were written by the victor and the Anglo-saxon chronicle says very little.

The point I was making is that we don't rely 99% on the tapestry as was posted.

BTW I have somewhere, in an otherwise very very very dull book indeed on Hastings, some bits of analysis on how the BT has been changed over the years by possibly misguided repairs. Includes the famous arrow in the eye scene.

Not doubting you, but can you name or otherwise identify those 4 or 5 written accounts?

Perhaps you're referring to later accounts, not contemporaneous ones?

Are you seriously putting credence in Geffrei Gamar, who says William had "over 11,000 ships" ?

Or Orderic Vitalis, who says he brought over 50,000 knights?

I tend to disregard such sources as blatantly false...

The arrow in the eye apparently was considered a "fitting death" for oath-breakers at that time, and the whole Norman "colorful excuse" for invading England was that Harold had broken his oath. All in all, the Bayeaux mostly tells the Norman version of the story quite neatly, and could potentially be viewed as a work of Norman propaganda more than anything else.

But I sense Nik is getting annoyed with me here, and that's not good, so maybe I should just shut up about this...

possum wrote:
But I sense Nik is getting annoyed with me here, and that's not good, so maybe I should just shut up about this...

God God no, carry on please

Are you seriously putting credence in Geffrei Gamar, who says William had "over 11,000 ships" ?

Or Orderic Vitalis, who says he brought over 50,000 knights?

I tend to disregard such sources as blatantly false...

Why?
I'm sure in a few (perhaps hundreds of) years time nobody will believe that Russia had more tanks than the rest of the world added together at the start of WW2. I believe it, but I can't give any evidence at the moment. Which is the same position you are in.

Numbers in historical accounts are quite often a problem even if the account is otherwise fairly reliable. To discount information we have in its entirety because some, or indeed all, the numbers are suspect is foolish.

I don't really have an opinion on the central issue, but since you folks are citing Hastings as an example, I wanted to point out that our knowledge of this battle is very, very limited.

I remember reading a while ago - sorry I can't remember the reference - an article that speculated the the 'feigned' retreat at Hastings wasn't a retreat, but the breakig of the attacking Normans by the defending English. The English charged down the hill after their defeated opponents, and were in turn broken by the Norman reserves.
As is the normal practice of the victors, they tell the story and claim that it was a planned action to lure the enemy off the hill.

I'll believe this account as much as I do any other - until someone unearths a contemporary materials that give more specific details.

Let's try this again with a JPG. Maybe this forum software does not like PNG's

Shazam!