Loosing a not to charge test.

[MDH]

You are in the middle ages and you are an honoured fierce foot soldier ravenflight, dressed for battle, in the middle of a battlefield. Your adrenaline has reached the top and you are watching your mounted hateful enemy who is there to destroy you, loosing his morale, starting to break, giving backs, loosing cohesion. You want to attack them and eat their bones. But your commander for reasons you may not understand decides not to charge . Do you believe it would be easier or more difficult to make you obey the order? If it's more difficult then a test not to charge has to be taken on tabletop.

I suppose if one thinks of the Saxon Fyrd charging downhill at Senlac Hill ( aka Hastings) much against Harold's express orders and to their doom, and Prince Edwards( later Edward I) charging the Londoners at Lewes (very much at his will ) pursuing off the battle field and then coming back to find it lost its not obvious when it is culturally logical and more likely much less beneficial .

In the 12th and 13th centuries less well off knights in W Europe would want to charge other knights not for for glory and honour ( chivalry as a philosophy being a rather later development ) as for prisoners to ransom and for their arms, armour and horse.

The you get the religious fervour angle ( Nicopolis) with knights charging despite the commander's plan.

I think it too easy for us to make broad generalisations and assumptions abut medieval thinking and behaviour when it was much more diverse not only across different eras within it but even in the same region and in the same year. The late Barbara Tuchman in "A Distant Mirror " about the 14th century makes that point very well.

So maybe leaving it to the D rolls has some merit!

[hazelbark]

I don't think the knights at Nicopolis charged against orders.

The Franco-Burgundian charged under ordesr and against the advice of the Hungarian leaders who did not charge.

[awesum4]

I was surprised at the replies saying they would not charge as I've never seen it interpreted that way, despite playing FOG since the rules were published. If the knights had been in a position to intercept a charge on the pike, or been alongside the pike I would say the medium foot don't test. But before the knights can charge into the medium foot they have to wheel into position on their next bound, presuming they don't have some other target on front of them, then charge on their following bound. Thats an impact and 3 other combats fought between the mefium foot and the pike before the knights become involved.

[grahambriggs]

I was surprised at the replies saying they would not charge as I've never seen it interpreted that way, despite playing FOG since the rules were published. If the knights had been in a position to intercept a charge on the pike, or been alongside the pike I would say the medium foot don't test. But before the knights can charge into the medium foot they have to wheel into position on their next bound, presuming they don't have some other target on front of them, then charge on their following bound. Thats an impact and 3 other combats fought between the mefium foot and the pike before the knights become involved.

In the original post it says the knights are next to the pike. So they could well fight as an overlap. It's an abstract mechanism but it usually works quite well.

[awesum4]

Pete and Graham,

thanks for your explanations and your patience.

I looked up an earlier discussion on the forum "multiple tests not to charge", where it explained that if the medium foot had failed a test not to charge, and the pike and knights were the only available targets, they would have to charge both, That's consistent with what you guys have been saying here. Therefore it follows that in this instance the medium foot don't have to test.

[gozerius]

That is the key to the whole argument. A foot BG must test not to charge any enemy foot within charge range, but if it fails it must charge all potential charge targets in range. The wording is not clear whether a mounted BG counts as "eligible" or not, since it does not trigger the test but could be reached. The rule is clear that if the mounted could be contacted there is no test.
So the question is: Is the mounted an eligible charge target or are only foot BGs?

[petedalby]

Pete and Graham,

thanks for your explanations and your patience.

Not a problem - always happy to help if we can

And you should continue to challenge things that you disagree with - but generally speaking the rules do mean what they say - most of the time.

[lawrenceg]

I recall one of the authors stating on here that mounted would not need to test for a charge without orders if they could possibly wheel and enter disordering terrain, even if a straight ahead charge would miss the terrain.