Slitherine

stev1485 wrote:
Re the Dailami – they will charge on a 7 – on what dice? Impetuous Dailami seem a bit strange, but that is not an era I’m au fait with.

Not sure Hammy really got to the point about the Dailami and the magic number 7.

It isn't that they need a 7 to charge - a la 6th edition testing to charge - it is that they will charge an appropriate opponent within reach whether you want them to or not unless they pass a 2d6 test not to, on which they require a final score of 7 or more.

The premise is that certain types of troops are more pre-disposed to hand to hand combat than others through training and inclination/tactical doctrine and unless kept under control, represented by the test, they will initiate combat. It is a more subtle, and IMO vastly more accurate, equivalent of impetuous troops in DBM although in FoG they are called Shock Troops. Examples are lance armed cavalry and knights, Impact Foot such as Roman legionarii and Celtic "warbands" and Offensive Spearmen such as Greek Hoplites. Drilled types (regular if you like) are more easily kept under control than undrilled - which, for example, means that Richard III having the military orders at the "hot spots" in his march to Arsuf is modelled well and the military order milites can still charge prematurely as they did at that battle.

Dailami are included because they were the primary offensive infantry of Moslem armies of the C10th and Impact Foot is the best classification of their abilities - DBM Ax(S) does not really work for them and, IMO, not even the changes for DBMM which make Ax(S) a sort of Bd(F)-lite really works either I'm afraid.

IMO a damned good mechanism - but then again I'm a bit biased on that one

Best not to think of it as impetuous/spontaneous but as the tactical doctrine of the troops in question implemented by their leaders who are not explicitly represented on table as generals,etc. Your role as the general/player is to get them into the right position at the right time so that if they do attack it is when you would have wanted it anyway.

Hi

Just to add my tuppence worth in a more general fashion

I have only played a couple of FOG games vs at least a dozen Dbmm games but my 'findings/reactions' are basically as follows

Positive

FOG even in Beta form is very clearly written with few queries arising (and those easily sorted) compared to Dbmm/Dbm they are a breath of fresh air and cause me a lot less brain-aches
The Mechanics of Combat Hammy has outlined are quite intuitive and work well overall as a mechanic
The sequence of play is fine
Terrain set-up straight forward
As Hammy stated the amount of factors involved in the various phases of Combat and the Cohesion tests etc are not that onerous and easily remembered.
No re-basing from DBx required and armies of similar number of bases.
Points costing of troop types more flexible than DBx

Negative (note purely my subjective view)

Seem rather 'old-fashioned' in many ways (reminded me of playable 7th rather than 6th) with various unit states (Disrupted Fragmented Routed) and Cohesion (Waver) tests. Charge and Interception charge concepts re-appear
I dont like the need to use markers/base manipulation as it again seems a backward step (that said there is no bookeeping in FOG)
No real feeling of the Generals being in command of troops as no restrictions (other than Allied troops) over who/what they command on any given as turn. Armies lack the structured feel of Dbm Commands
All units can potentially move/fight every single turn ie no 'inertia' built-in compared to DBx Pip rolls
The games feel more 'skirmish/tactical' level than DBx which has Imho a much more epic feel (all very subjective this)
I dont really like the movement rules as they seem at times a bit fiddly ie Hvy Foot with a 3" move can include 2 wheels (bit of a nightmare to measure) also I dont like the ability to wheel into contact (I forsee some cheesy manouvres and arguements with this)
Deployment Zones are rather free and generous and could lead to two players hugging diagonally opposite corners.

I thought I would like reverting to Units and all missile armed troops shooting but to be honest I dont as it adds to that 'skirmish' feel.
Similarily I thought that classing a Legionary as Drilled Hvy Foot of Superior Status with Armour and Skilled with Swords was better than simply classing them as Reg BdS but I am not convinced anymore.
I think skirmish units are too flexible especially compared to Dbmm (which now basically forces skirmishers to 'fight' to dely opponnents rather than niggle and avoid)
Shooting I am undecided about overall and I realise that any set of rules finds it hard to strike a balance between too powerful and not worth the effort.

There are an enormous amount of dice rolls involved in the game compared to DBx which may or may not be a bad/good thing from a statistical POV.
Even the rules themselves reccomend each player having 10 dice of one colour and 2 sets of 5 of two other colours !!

Overall thus far I prefer Dbmm (despite some faults and awful writing style) as a game as to me it just 'feels' (I cant really articulate it any better) more like a battle than FOG.
That said I would happily play FOG as an alternative as it is most definately a playable set of rules as is.

I guess for a gamer like myself who doesnt frequent comps and generally trys to play historical or at least contempoary army match-ups its nice to have two decent sets of Ancients rules that my figures can be used for.

Cheers
Gary Barr

sgtsteiner wrote:There are an enormous amount of dice rolls involved in the game compared to DBx which may or may not be a bad/good thing from a statistical POV.
Even the rules themselves reccomend each player having 10 dice of one colour and 2 sets of 5 of two other colours !!

Overall thus far I prefer Dbmm (despite some faults and awful writing style) as a game as to me it just 'feels' (I cant really articulate it any better) more like a battle than FOG.
That said I would happily play FOG as an alternative as it is most definately a playable set of rules as is.

I guess for a gamer like myself who doesnt frequent comps and generally trys to play historical or at least contempoary army match-ups its nice to have two decent sets of Ancients rules that my figures can be used for.

I am not convinced that there are that many more dice rolls between the two games. There are more dice rolled in less rolls than in DBx, overall there are more dice physically rolled in FoG but not an enormous amount more.

As to feel of battle I have really gone off the end of game chaos in DBM. It might be justifiable but a lot of DBM games I look at now to me just feel like someone had piled their troops on the table in a semi random mess. With a FoG game you can look at a game every 20-30 minutes or so and see what is happening, with DBx you have to study precisely what is where and what is facing in which direction.

At the moment I feel no real urge to play DBx but the prospect of a potentially themed FoG tournament at Warfare may well get me to bring my toys out to play despite Warfare being a comp that I try to avoid as I stay with friends nearby and playing means I don't get to see much of them.

Hammy

Hi Hammy

Havent played enough games of FOG to make definitive statements but on Sat I played a game (using the Roman & Cartho armies for Trebia in rules) vs my regular opponnent (Stephen Brittain) who not being a beta-tester I guided thru rules as such only letting him look at QRef sheets and ARmy OOB

On definate plus side he was able to pick up the gist of FOG mechanisms with that alone (try playing Dbmm with just a QRS !!) and any queries I was able to quickly resolve. But he too felt an overall lack of I guess excitement using the rules

Ref the dice rolling I can only relate that a straightforward charge by 2 deep BG of 4 Gallic Cavlry into a 2 deep BG of 4 Roman Legionaries generated 4 die rolls each to resolve Impact combat with additional 4 die rolls for 1 cohesion test and 2 death rolls. Then in following Melee phase another 3-4 dice each followed by another 4 dice to resolve Cohesion/Death. Then Cav break-off in Joint phase (I quite liked this rule) and on following turn it all happened again ref number of die rolls with couple of additional rolls for Waver (sorry Cohesion) tests for nearby BGs when Cav routed.
This was just one BG match-up there were several more of similar dice rolling totals
I dont 'think' Dbmm would generate half this number of die rolls to resolve the same match-up (unlikely to be 2 deep lines head to head without overlaps etc).
Granted FOG does not have Pip rolls but overall it seems to generate a lot more rolls.
I suppose Dbmm could potentially generate more die rolls as every single element could potentially roll in a turn but its unlikely.

Funny you should mention the 'mess' at end of a DBx game (I think this is lessened in Dbmm) but we felt that in FOG that BGs could essentially operate semi-independantly and a cohesive battle-line was not as essential as we thought it would/should be. The 'fireworks' display aspect that PB likes to mention was evident. The great flexibility and speed of Generals coupled with lack of apparent structure to the armies was a turn-off compared to DBx. Personally I feel this will be even worse if 4 Generals used in a standard 800pt game
Of course lack of play with FOG and therefore lack of understanding of best tactics etc applies

To mirror your being jaded with DBx vis FOG we are playing a game tomorrow night and have both choose Dbmm as it just has more appeal for us at present mainly due to that perception of wanting to fight a battle rather than a 'bit of one'

To each their own eh

Cheers
Gary

sgtsteiner wrote:Hi Hammy

Havent played enough games of FOG to make definitive statements but on Sat I played a game (using the Roman & Cartho armies for Trebia in rules) vs my regular opponnent (Stephen Brittain) who not being a beta-tester I guided thru rules as such only letting him look at QRef sheets and ARmy OOB

On definate plus side he was able to pick up the gist of FOG mechanisms with that alone (try playing Dbmm with just a QRS !!) and any queries I was able to quickly resolve. But he too felt an overall lack of I guess excitement using the rules

You are not the first to mention this. Several people who have really struggled with DBx have found FoG massively easier to comprehend.

Ref the dice rolling I can only relate that a straightforward charge by 2 deep BG of 4 Gallic Cavlry into a 2 deep BG of 4 Roman Legionaries generated 4 die rolls each to resolve Impact combat with additional 4 die rolls for 1 cohesion test and 2 death rolls. Then in following Melee phase another 3-4 dice each followed by another 4 dice to resolve Cohesion/Death. Then Cav break-off in Joint phase (I quite liked this rule) and on following turn it all happened again ref number of die rolls with couple of additional rolls for Waver (sorry Cohesion) tests for nearby BGs when Cav routed.
This was just one BG match-up there were several more of similar dice rolling totals
I dont 'think' Dbmm would generate half this number of die rolls to resolve the same match-up (unlikely to be 2 deep lines head to head without overlaps etc).

In the FoG situation you describe each player rolls 4 dice at impact in one go then it is likely that one of them will need to roll 3 dice in one go for the cohesion test and death roll (everyone at Britcon rolled 2 dice of one colour and one of another for this). In DBM you would both roll 1 dice twice but you would also have been rolling dice for PIPs. As I said you roll more cubes but to me I don't feel I am rolling dice any more times.

Funny you should mention the 'mess' at end of a DBx game (I think this is lessened in Dbmm) but we felt that in FOG that BGs could essentially operate semi-independantly and a cohesive battle-line was not as essential as we thought it would/should be. The 'fireworks' display aspect that PB likes to mention was evident.

I think that what you may be experiencing is what seems to happen to a lot of people when they first play FoG. Yes BG's can operate independently but if they do you will definitley run the risk of them being beaten in detail. FoG rewards players who keep their troops in mutually supporting formations.

To me DBx has a ludicrous degree of fireworks at the end of a game. It is not uncommon for half the battlefield to not have more than two elements in a group.

Each to their own I suppose.

The great flexibility and speed of Generals coupled with lack of apparent structure to the armies was a turn-off compared to DBx. Personally I feel this will be even worse if 4 Generals used in a standard 800pt game
Of course lack of play with FOG and therefore lack of understanding of best tactics etc applies

Lack of commands is definitely different to DBx but not dissimilar to a lot of other ancients games. While it is possible for the general from your right flank to switch to the centre and your other generals shift left if you do this kind of thing you will need to be very confident that you don't need the general on your right.

To mirror your being jaded with DBx vis FOG we are playing a game tomorrow night and have both choose Dbmm as it just has more appeal for us at present mainly due to that perception of wanting to fight a battle rather than a 'bit of one'

To each their own eh

Absolutely.

Interestingly I am definitly starting to feel that DBx is far less of a battle than I used to. A DBx game starts looking like a battle, or at least it can but several of the DBMM competition games I have seen have had deployments that are beyond belief as players try to outwit the DBMM deployment system. As a DBx game progresses it hangs together for a while but once you start popping individual elements out all over the place it really starts to feel just plain wrong. Consider a block of 6 regular Bw(S) in 2 ranks, roll a 6 on your PIPs and all of a sudden you have 6 individual elements focusing their devastating firepower on two different enemy elements. Where do things like that happen in history??

Hammy

Something that may be worth considering, though it probably has been already, is the Pk, Lancer, Pk sort of formation, that can often creep in, especially if scouting is involved. How would two (units, BG's?) of legionaries next to each other, handle 2 pike blocks heading toward them with a unit of Companions in the middle?
That was always one of the annoying things about 6th, which was partially sorted in DBx by the pip drain of mixed mounted and foot. How is it handled in FOG?

Steve Rathgay

stev1485 wrote:Something that may be worth considering, though it probably has been already, is the Pk, Lancer, Pk sort of formation, that can often creep in, especially if scouting is involved. How would two (units, BG's?) of legionaries next to each other, handle 2 pike blocks heading toward them with a unit of Companions in the middle?
That was always one of the annoying things about 6th, which was partially sorted in DBx by the pip drain of mixed mounted and foot. How is it handled in FOG?

Steve Rathgay

A good question. The big issue for the Pike, Companion, Pike formation would be the ability to move quickly when some distance from the enemy. FoG allows BG's and groups of BG's (battle lines) to move twice if they stay outside a set distance from the enemy. In order to do this you must have ageneral with the BG or BL and you can't mix close order foot and mounted in the same BL. To get any real mobility with a formation like that you would need a minimum of two generals (one for each pike BG) and more realistically three.

The companions could get stuck in at closer distances but if the legionaries charge the pike frontally the companions could only intervene if the legionaries charge through the area directly to the front of the companions.

One area where a problem was noticed at Britcon was that you could sacrifice a small weak unit to force good enemy troops to pursue into troops they would not normally want to be charging (say legionaries charging companions...). This has been addressed by the authors and now in such a situation the legionaries have the option to take a CMT to prevent themselves charging the lancers.

Lancers charging legionaries is actually not that bad for the legions, the POAs at impact and in melee are even so it is not really a great fight either way.

Legionaries are pretty tough in FoG but to be honest I think they should be.

Hammy

This latter problem has been solved by integrating response into POAs. By avoiding the charging/countercharging debate you don't get the problems that 6th mechanisms generated.

As for command structures the main issue is tha FOG has tried to reflect how battles were really organised and fought which was:

1. In 10-15 major blocks of similar troops - what we called battlegroups - with a single junior general in charge who stuck to his command throughout;
2. Then a few senior general above that who in the main kept to their wing/centre etc but did at times did not do so. e.g. Ghengis Kahn at Indus leeaving the centre to join the left flank or Cesar moving around and joining the fight vs Pompey. Also generals fought in different ways - some laeding charges, some hovering behind trhe lines as more of an army manager. The idea that they had a command and stuck to it isn't really correct - it is for the next level down but not the few senior generals. Certainly they started that way but the senior generals at times would move from them - not often as I say, but on occasion.

Thus the FOG system tries to allow allthe above with minimum fuss. As several players ahv said while it is te hnically possible for your generals to roam it is not practical given the mechnaisms.

Battle were definitely not fought out as 60-100 small units that could operate or doing anything of much use indepedently to influence a large battle. This was a fundamental starting point of philosophy.

For what its worth my main set was 6th and I can safely say FOG feels nothing like 6th in action. Nor like 7th either which I played a fari bit. And of course nothing like DBx which I played extensively for 12 years. It has elements of familairty with many thigns, but as a whole has a feel all of its own.

Whether you like that feel or not only you can decide but I would say that experience suggests that people are tempted to treat things as units rapidly start losing to those who have realised that it is coordination of major wings, centres and reserves that win games inthe FOG mechnaisms.

Hope that helps to some degree. Comment of similarity with anything would be much more sensible if you play 5 games of FOG first and adapot to an FOG mindset.

Si

Hi Shall

>Comment of similarity with anything would be much more sensible if you play 5 games of FOG first and adapot to >an FOG mindset.
I agree as my FOG gaming has been very limited which is why most of my comments have been general 'impressions'.
At present the issue for myself and my regular opponnent is do we actually want to adapt a FOG mind-set or a Dbmm version.
The two sets of rules are so different in scope and design and yet playable with the same 'toys' that I would happily play either (certainly my Romans are mean in FOG !) but still plumb for Dbmm for that 'epic' feel.
The ease of understanding of FOG (maybe the 'old-fashioned' concepts are a boon in this regard ?) is a MAJOR plus as is the authors support (though to be fair to Phil Barker he is a one-man show for whatever reasons) and of course (and to allay any fears about your potential future millionaire status) once published I will be buying them

Cheers
Gary

I'll add a couple of comments.

The first is the comments about FoG not feeling as 'big battle' as DBM. My view, following on from my Britcon experience, is that the better more experienced players (Jerome, for example with his Scots) managed their army as an integrated whole, rather than trying to maximise the match-up of battle groups. If I looked at Jermone's game against me as an outsider I'd be hard pressed to tell you if it was a DBM or FoG game. Probably what might give it away as a FOG game is the lack of higgly-piggly pushbacks you get in DBM.

The second comment is around a FoG game being not as exciting as a DBM game. I made the same comment after 4 games. The lack of quick kills and not trying to reposition elements to maximise match-ups was, for me, less exciting. It all just seemed to be push-your-units-into-his-and-roll-better-dice. However, after six of so games I started to think in broader terms (where do I want to concentrate my forces? where do I want to avoid/delay a fight? what style of battle do I want? etc). I then started to formulate plans and enjoy trying to execute them. Even when the plan goes horribly wrong. Not that you can't have similar broad plans in DBM, its just for my initial games I was trying to play FOG using DBM thinking for the tactical execution of the plan.

In the end it's each to their own preferred rules. After 20 games I like FoG and find it a challanging rule set. I'll play a DBM game but don't look forward to it as much as a FOG game.

Neil

neilhammond wrote:The second comment is around a FoG game being not as exciting as a DBM game. I made the same comment after 4 games. The lack of quick kills and not trying to reposition elements to maximise match-ups was, for me, less exciting. It all just seemed to be push-your-units-into-his-and-roll-better-dice. However, after six of so games I started to think in broader terms (where do I want to concentrate my forces? where do I want to avoid/delay a fight? what style of battle do I want? etc). I then started to formulate plans and enjoy trying to execute them. Even when the plan goes horribly wrong. Not that you can't have similar broad plans in DBM, its just for my initial games I was trying to play FOG using DBM thinking for the tactical execution of the plan.

Neil

I had a very similar experience. During my first game I was regularly puzzled by the way things were not going as expected. My DBM mindset was making it hard to evaluate FoG. I was concerned that it was going to turn into a "march forward, roll gobs of dice" game with no subtlety. By the time I played my second game, though, I could already see the subtleties developing, and could see how the game would have just as many interesting decision points as DBM (or whatever one's game of choice is) it's just that they would be different decision points.

In short, give FoG a chance to win you over. I expect that the "epic feel" you are looking for will come.

Marc

Thanks for the various replies folks.
It certainly looks interesting, and most of my concerns are based around only having seen the army lists that Hammy had at Witney. These gave me an idea of how troop types are seen, and how they might operate, but absolutely no idea as to the reality on the tabletop
.
(As someone who sees legionaries as triumphing due to weight of numbers, I'm a bit sceptical, but that's just an opinion)

When are the rules likely to be out? As a Reading club member, it would be good top know when to expect them vis-a-vis Warfare.

Good luck with the rest of the project.

PS. I'm about to send Nik a new DBMM Urartian list for Slingshot. If you want me to do an FOG equivalent, I'd be happy to do so.

Steve,

The rules will be published in February 2008.

There is however going to be a FoG tournament at Warfare and I understand that people wanting to enter the comp will be added to the test program although by November don't expect to see many changes before publication.

Hammy

nikgaukroger wrote: The premise is that certain types of troops are more pre-disposed to hand to hand combat than others through training and inclination/tactical doctrine and unless kept under control, represented by the test, they will initiate combat. It is a more subtle, and IMO vastly more accurate, equivalent of impetuous troops in DBM although in FoG they are called Shock Troops. Examples are lance armed cavalry and knights, Impact Foot such as Roman legionarii and Celtic "warbands" and Offensive Spearmen such as Greek Hoplites. Drilled types (regular if you like) are more easily kept under control than undrilled - which, for example, means that Richard III having the military orders at the "hot spots" in his march to Arsuf is modelled well and the military order milites can still charge prematurely as they did at that battle.

Dailami are included because they were the primary offensive infantry of Moslem armies of the C10th and Impact Foot is the best classification of their abilities - DBM Ax(S) does not really work for them and, IMO, not even the changes for DBMM which make Ax(S) a sort of Bd(F)-lite really works either I'm afraid.

IMO a damned good mechanism - but then again I'm a bit biased on that one

Best not to think of it as impetuous/spontaneous but as the tactical doctrine of the troops in question implemented by their leaders who are not explicitly represented on table as generals,etc. Your role as the general/player is to get them into the right position at the right time so that if they do attack it is when you would have wanted it anyway.

About to have my first game tomorrow, with Dailami, so this should be interesting to look for. Reading the rules to date the impact/melee mechanism does look very interesting. Especially interesting as another favourite is very poorly modelled in DBx, that of the Catalan Company, and I would assume they're going to work in a similar way.


Having played 5th/6th for many years, I can't much in the way of similarities. Not that I would regard similarities as a negative.

peterrjohnston wrote:
About to have my first game tomorrow, with Dailami, so this should be interesting to look for. Reading the rules to date the impact/melee mechanism does look very interesting. Especially interesting as another favourite is very poorly modelled in DBx, that of the Catalan Company, and I would assume they're going to work in a similar way.

Indeed they will, sort of. IIRC they will be MF and either all Impact Foot/Swordsmen or all Offensive Spearmen/Spearmen; being troops that could be classed either way depending on how you judge the evidence so you get to choose but they must be all one or the other.

nikgaukroger wrote: Indeed they will, sort of. IIRC they will be MF and either all Impact Foot/Swordsmen or all Offensive Spearmen/Spearmen; being troops that could be classed either way depending on how you judge the evidence so you get to choose but they must be all one or the other.

Although how you model effectively a group who beat everyone in site, foot, mounted, who cares, might be difficult

Rgds,
Peter

peterrjohnston wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote: Indeed they will, sort of. IIRC they will be MF and either all Impact Foot/Swordsmen or all Offensive Spearmen/Spearmen; being troops that could be classed either way depending on how you judge the evidence so you get to choose but they must be all one or the other.

Although how you model effectively a group who beat everyone in site, foot, mounted, who cares, might be difficult

Indeed - In FoG MF, superior, offensive spears comes closest to this.

However, arguably they only beat knights in uneven terrain.

As Nik says, we let the player choose his interpretation.

peterrjohnston wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote: Indeed they will, sort of. IIRC they will be MF and either all Impact Foot/Swordsmen or all Offensive Spearmen/Spearmen; being troops that could be classed either way depending on how you judge the evidence so you get to choose but they must be all one or the other.

Although how you model effectively a group who beat everyone in site, foot, mounted, who cares, might be difficult

Rgds,
Peter

Richard is right. The only pitched battle they fought and won, that I know of, against mounted was the battle of Halmyros against the Latin knights charging into flooded fields. The "battles" against the Turks were not pitched battles but dawn attacks on camps and the like. They excelled at special operations but I doubt they would have lasted very long in the open against either knights (MF) or horse archers (unprotected).

Regards,

Julian

jlopez wrote:
Richard is right. The only pitched battle they fought and won, that I know of, against mounted was the battle of Halmyros against the Latin knights charging into flooded fields. The "battles" against the Turks were not pitched battles but dawn attacks on camps and the like. They excelled at special operations but I doubt they would have lasted very long in the open against either knights (MF) or horse archers (unprotected).

Regards,

Julian

Hi Julian,

Not if you can believe Muntaner, a primary source if ever there was one. They deployed with camp protected by a marsh, but the description of the battle says "And he put himself [the Count of Brienne, now Duke of Athens] in the van with his banner and proceeded to attack the Company, and they of the Company went to attack him. What shall I tell you? The horses of the count, at the noise the almugavars made, turned towards the marsh, and there the count and the banner fell, and all those who were in the van". [My italics. From section CCXL in Goodenough's translation].

There's an article on wikipedia on the battle, but I'm not sure how they got to digging ditches based on Muntaner's description. Did the Goodenough translation make a mistake?

Section CCXXI also describes a battle against the Byzantines at Apros where the Almugavars got off their horses because they fought better on foot! No sneaky attacks there. In CCXXVI there's a description of the battle against the Alans. It starts with a dawn attack, although one thousand Alan mounted were ready and the battle lasted all day. They won both. Of course.

Convinced?

Rgds,
Peter

peterrjohnston wrote:

jlopez wrote:
Richard is right. The only pitched battle they fought and won, that I know of, against mounted was the battle of Halmyros against the Latin knights charging into flooded fields. The "battles" against the Turks were not pitched battles but dawn attacks on camps and the like. They excelled at special operations but I doubt they would have lasted very long in the open against either knights (MF) or horse archers (unprotected).

Regards,

Julian

Hi Julian,

Not if you can believe Muntaner, a primary source if ever there was one. They deployed with camp protected by a marsh, but the description of the battle says "And he put himself [the Count of Brienne, now Duke of Athens] in the van with his banner and proceeded to attack the Company, and they of the Company went to attack him. What shall I tell you? The horses of the count, at the noise the almugavars made, turned towards the marsh, and there the count and the banner fell, and all those who were in the van". [My italics. From section CCXL in Goodenough's translation].

There's an article on wikipedia on the battle, but I'm not sure how they got to digging ditches based on Muntaner's description. Did the Goodenough translation make a mistake?

Section CCXXI also describes a battle against the Byzantines at Apros where the Almugavars got off their horses because they fought better on foot! No sneaky attacks there. In CCXXVI there's a description of the battle against the Alans. It starts with a dawn attack, although one thousand Alan mounted were ready and the battle lasted all day. They won both. Of course.

Convinced?

Rgds,
Peter

Hi,

Just been ploughing through the original which is helpfully listed by folio rather than chapter with no cross-index...

Anyway, the battle of Halmyros:

http://www.lluisvives.com/servlet/Sirve ... ma0429.htm

The Goodenough translation is...wait for it...good enough! The bit about about the turning of the knight into the swamp is a bit obscure. My guess, and yours is as good as mine, is that rather than the noise being the factor for the change of direction it was a tactical decision taken by the Franks. Muntaner, on the receiving end of the charge, may have thought that it was due to the noise but I doubt trained warhorses would have been put off at a bit of screaming. However, the source is clear about them turning "for" or "towards" the swamp. Maybe they decided to veer off towards the Company's flanks to avoid a frontal attack? Either way it was one those "pants" moments so beloved of Tim. Funnily enough I refought this battle using POW with four catalans playing both sides. I made them read the original Cronica and then had the Company players draw a plan showing the position of the concealed swamps. The Frankish players, despite having read the account, just looked up the factors, decided it was a doddle and charged straight into the swamps where they got slaughtered...doh

No mention whatsoever of trench digging in Muntaner's account.

Quite correct, they preferred to fight on foot but obviously didn't mind riding the horses they'd gained from the previous battle (three per man). This battle of Gallipoli seems to have been either a dawn attack on the Byzantine army as it got ready to march out of camp or a surprise attack on the leading elements. Not really clear which. Either way, only the Byzantine van was involved and duly clobbered before being pursued into camp where the rest were dealt with in customary fashion.

I think the dawn attack on the Alans kind of proves my point that they never really fought a proper pitched battle. From my reading of Muntaner, the Company was never subjected to a concerted attack by a prepared enemy army in the open. Neither does it seem to have endured the repeated attentions of horse archers. In fact they did their best to avoid such conventional battles and instead relied on sudden and surprise attacks to demoralize and disperse the enemy.

Not convinced yet but willing to be.

Regards,

Julian