Slitherine

I am just flagging up an older discussion from last year that I feel is still very relevant to this question of "historical accuracy". Below are some excerpts from a very fine FOG player called mceochaidh who initiated the thread . . .


i) "Issue number 2 for me is the lack of a unit command structure in the PC. In the TT version, the concept of a "battle Line" is used to combine BGs for movement. I have suggested different solutions to this issue, but lately have been playtesting in DAG games a very simple change. If a BG is not in command range, I reduce its movement allowance by 1. For example, if I am moving a medium foot BG with a movement allowance of 3, I click on the unit to show me the possible moves which are highlighted and then check to see if in command range. If not, I reduce the move by 1 hex. This is not hard to do and produces a very interesting change in the game. Pike units no longer take walks in the country by themselves; they tend to stay with they fellow pikes. I have to plan ahead for wide sweeping moves by medium foot or cavalry. I use all of the generals available. It makes games against the AI a little more interesting. This change would impact heavy foot more so than other troops, but all are affected. The biggest benefit to me is that it provides more realistic, historically accurate behavior (as well as moving more towards the TT rules.)"

ii) "One thing I forgot to mention on command idea is that all compulsory moves would remain the same as well as the ability to charge any enemy within normal movement range; MF could charge 3 hexes whether or not in command radius."

iii) "I like zumHeuriger's idea about adjacent BGs to a BG in command radius also counting as in command. If I am understanding correctly, a HF BG next to another HF BG would count as being in command, but a MF BG out of command next to a HF in command would not. This would promote the "battle line" concept. The programming logic would be "check if in command, if not, check if adjacent to same troop type in command" or something like that. I am not sure how complicated it would be to program."

iv) "1) FOG 500 point armies usually have 40 to 60 BGs that now can all act as individual units, moving as they please based on the player's bird's eye view. This is not an historical way to allow movement. To quote Xenophon's account of Leuktra, the "the Spartan King led out his attack before his own army even perceived that he was advancing. His allies on the other end of the battle, if not many of his own Spartans nearby, were not even aware their commander had signaled the charge."

Thucidides describes the Argives at Miletos in 413 suddenly rushing their Milesian enemies across the battlefield, leaving the phalanx of the Athenians in the center of their allied battle line far behind. Victor Hansen speaks at length about the din of battle, the noise and the dust kicked up by the armies marching, thus inhibiting communication. Even later, after probable improvements in command by the Successors and Romans, Polybius' description of Kynoskephelai states the shouts and war cry of both Macedonians and Romans, as well as the general cheering of the noncombatants, created a sense of rampant disorder throughout the battlefield.

I firmly believe some change is needed. My revised thought is to create a variable movement test (call it a VMT) for all BGs not in command range. The closer a BG is to command range, the higher the probability the BG will move its normal move. The BG will always be able to turn or move 1 hex. I think this may be where Igor was going with his post.

2) FOG does not have a true command structure. The CIC usually ends up being an IC, but other than that he is no different than a sub commander. I would make sub commanders like ally commanders and designate which BGs were part of the sub's command. Like an ally commander, the sub could only command his BGs. To move in the direction of the TT game, where all commanders move at the speed of LH, I would give the CiC an option to be a light horse BG. Now some armies have this option and many don't. The CiC would be able to command any BGs in his own army, but not ally BGs.

3) To encourage BGs to move and act together I would make two changes. First, I would conform rear support as closely as possible to the TT rules, as TGM suggested. Supporting BGs should at a minimum be facing in the same direction and be of similar quality (HF must support HF.) Second, I would allow a +1 on cohesion tests if the testing BG has non-fragmented adjacent (non-skirmish) friends of similar quality on BOTH sides, whether they are in combat or not. The first change on rear support will probably result in fewer positives for cohesion tests, the second new plus 1 for adjacent friends will probably result in more positives, but will encourage the movement of BGs together."

viewtopic.php?f=84&t=23454

I am playing a number of 400pt battles with SOA armies at the moment with a view to building more historically accurate armies for a number of the lists. This is a suggested list for the Medieval Irish (both early and late variations) . . .

1x "field" commander (galloglaich "nobles") and 2x "troop" commanders (armoured cavalry)

2x Armoured cavalry.........................................................32 pts
3x irish light horse...........................................................21 pts
3x Galloglaich "nobles"(superior)...........................................27 pts
9x Galloglaichs (average)....................................................63 pts
18x Kerns (MF, average).....................................................90 pts
9x Kerns (LF, average).......................................................36pts
9x Kerns (LF, poor)...........................................................18pts
4x Rising Out...................................................................8 pts
4x Archers (LF)................................................................20pts

The interesting thing for me in this list is how to portray the galloglaichs. It is possible in the DAG to pick upwards of a dozen "superior" galloglaich noble units without any "average" galloglaichs at all but I feel this is not historically accurate at all. The SOA book actually says this about the galloglaich, "As solid infantry, with a reputation for steadiness, . . . . allowing the Irish to match the heavier troops of the Anglo-Irish." (page 31)

So I have done a little experiment with a very simple test mini-scenario for the later period using the ratio of one "superior" galloglaich unit to three "average" galloglaich units against Anglo-Irish knights, men-at-arms and billmen. You can download it here and play it against yourself by setting both armies to "human".

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/15461007/Mediev ... 20test.rar

It depicts part of a hypothetical battle where two flank contingents of the later Anglo-Irish and Medieval Irish armies come into contact. The C-in-C's of both armies are not active in the game and should stay in the corners (without them included the scenario would not work). I have done two play-tests so far - the Irish lead 1-0 and the other game was drawn.

Gday Pete just saw this Play testy for the Irish so i have posted a paired challange for you.I would be willing to help you out with Historical IrishArmy playtesting as i like the idea of historically accurate armiesand would be great to help you out with this one. Password is Irish

Turk1964 wrote:Gday Pete just saw this Play testy for the Irish so i have posted a paired challange for you.I would be willing to help you out with Historical IrishArmy playtesting as i like the idea of historically accurate armiesand would be great to help you out with this one. Password is Irish

OK, Turk. I have picked up the challenges.

EDIT: the Galloglaichs won both play-tests very easily so it is now 3-0 with 1 drawn.

A suggested line-up for HYW English in Britain early 1320-1350 . . .

1x "field" commander (mounted lesser men-at-arms*)
2x "troop" commanders (dismounted knights)

2x dismounted knights................................28pts
2x dismounted men-at-arms.........................24pts
4x retinue billmen.....................................40pts
10x retinue longbowmen..............................90pts
1x mounted lesser men-at-arms.....................17pts*
1x hobilars...............................................7pts
4x T+C levy billmen.....................................20pts
4x T+C levy archers (protected)......................24pts
2x T+C levy archers (unprotected)....................10pts
1x northern border horse (cavalry)....................9pts
4x northern border spearmen (average, protected).24pts
2x northern border spearmen (poor, unprotected)...8pts
2x northern border billmen.............................14pts

Note: I think there may be an error in the DAG with regards to the "mounted lesser men-at-arms" entry. They are actually classed as better troops than mounted men-at-arms and cost 3 pts more.

This site is also good for reference and includes sample army lists, although it's geared towards tabletop FoG rather than computer-based:

http://www.madaxeman.com/wiki2/tiki-index.php

stockwellpete wrote: The interesting thing for me in this list is how to portray the galloglaichs. It is possible in the DAG to pick upwards of a dozen "superior" galloglaich noble units without any "average" galloglaichs at all but I feel this is not historically accurate at all. The SOA book actually says this about the galloglaich, "As solid infantry, with a reputation for steadiness, . . . . allowing the Irish to match the heavier troops of the Anglo-Irish." (page 31)

As we discussed in our previous battle I don't necessarily agree with your classing of Gallowglaich as average rather than superior quality, or at least I offer an alternate view.

The article top of Google's search list for this subject says of the Gallowglaich: "they were drawn from the best fighters in the Hebrides", "were of mixed Scottish-Viking stock, the result of many centuries of Viking raids on the Western Isles and Scotland's western coast", "were noted for their courage and fierceness in battle" and that "the English quickly learned to fear the galloglaich". Wikipedia's article (on Gallowglass) describes them as "a class of elite mercenary warriors" and that they "were attractive as a heavy armour trained aristocratic infantry".

Having the Gallowglaich as average makes them only marginally better than Kern, the only differences being one is heavy infantry the other medium and one has a light spear, the other a heavy weapon. That's 5 points for Kern versus 7 points for average Gallowglaich. The Superior Gallowglaich are 9 points.

The Wikipedia article also states that "in time there came to be many native Irish gallowglass as the term came to mean a type of warrior rather than an ethnic designation". My interpretation is that the Gallowglaich nobles in the FoG army list represent the ethnic Gallowglaich while those listed as simply Gallowglaich are the indigenous Irish versions of them. This is similar to how "legionaries", "Thracians" and "Tarantine cavalry" from other time periods came to be referred as a troop type rather than soldiers from a particular place.

Anyway, I'd agree with you not to max out on numbers of them.

I am not advocating classing all gallowglaich as "average" - I am suggesting that if you class 75% of them as "average" and 25% of them as "superior (and give their contingent a leader flag of their own) then they are still more than capable of defeating their historical opponents i.e. the Anglo-Irish. The small-scale scenario that I have made today clearly illustrates this.

The problem with the FOG designation of "galloglaich nobles" is that the galloglaichs were not actually nobles - they were retainers based on clans of individual families led by chieftains. The Wikipedia article also describes them as "heavy armour troops", which seems to be incorrect, certainly in terms of their service in Ireland from the 13thC onwards. Some of them may have worn armour but some wore very little (some chainmail) so "protected" rather than "armoured" or "heavy armoured" seems to be the correct designation.

This article is quite useful. It suggests that the gallowglaich were the only Irish troops able to confront the Anglo-irish in the open and it suggests that the kerns were also hired mercenary fighters so perhaps the gap between gallowglaich and kern is not as wide as we might have thought. The most interesting part of the article for me though is about the "Rising Out". These are depicted merely as "poor mob" in FOG but the writer suggests that in some parts of Ireland widespread mobilisation of the "Rising Out" continued into the 15thC and that some of these were mounted as well as being quite well equipped . . .

http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/armies/dba164.html

Well, the literature supports the idea that they were originally of Scottish noble stock:

- "gallowglass septs settled in Ireland after being dispossessed of their lands in Scotland for choosing the wrong sides in the Wars of Scottish Independence" (wikipedia)

- they were "heavy armour trained aristocratic infantry" (Wikipedia)

- "Examples of Galloglaich who began as Scottish chieftains and migrated to more or less full time employment as mercenaries in Ireland include the MacSweens and the MacAlistairs". (fanaticus.org)

- "there may have been a distinct Norse pedigree to famous warriors, or sailors, or both, and that these may have amounted to a distinct social caste. Given the hereditary "family business" nature of Galloglaich warfare this seems quite feasible" (fanaticus.org).

Also on the nature of their armour:

- "the heavily armed and armored galloglaich put that experience to good use, which is why they were so valuable to the Irish. While the average Irish warrior wore only padded or leather armor, the galloglaich were well-armored with a hauberk (mail coat) and helmet." (Royal Galloglas google article)

Originally, I am sure they were of noble "stock", but in Ireland from the 13thC onwards they were the hired help and they sold themselves to both sides of the conflict there. They were not powerful nobles in Ireland although the leaders of the various clan families were important chieftains in their own right.

So, your quotation - "Examples of Galloglaich who began as Scottish chieftains and migrated to more or less full time employment as mercenaries in Ireland include the MacSweens and the MacAlistairs". (fanaticus.org) - is correct. So perhaps we can say that they were "de-classed" as a consequence of their defeat in Scotland.

On armour, the FOG SOA book says this - "They aspired to a mail coat, but grave effigies make it clear that a high proportion wore only a helmet and the textile cotun (akheton)". I forget the name of the author of an older book on Irish battles (I have read excerpts from it in the past) and I think it was he who emphasised that Irish warriors were heavily armoured at battles like Dysert O'Dea - I think his ideas have come under some pressure in recent years and that is reflected in the text of the SOA book. The SOA book also contains a picture of three 15thC gallowglass warriors - two are wearing full chain mail coats while one is just wearing chainmail across his shoulders (a bit like an extended aventail).

This is helpful regarding the "grave effigies" and answers to questions about the social status of the gallowglass in Ireland and the armour they wore both in Scotland and Ireland . . .

http://www.angelfire.com/ga/priory/tomb.html

I found another interesting article on Galloglaich that makes the following points:

- "gallowglasses were elite tribal mercenaries who were a large part of Gaelic armies"

- "the first gallowglasses were Macdougall warriors who could trace their ancestry back to Somerled [Clan MacDougall is a Highland Scottish clan consisting of the descendants of Dubgall mac Somairle, son of Somerled, who ruled Lorne and the Isle of Mull in Argyll in the 13th century, i.e. they were ruling class]

- "whilst there was little formal training, many gallowglasses took advantage of the schools back in the Hebrides...at these schools they would have learned from experienced professionals how to use their weapons more effectively at the expense of the local tacksman. Those that did not go to these schools would have been those who had acquired enough prestige to be trained at the expense, and often at the court, of the Irish kings".

- "the skill in weapons that gallowglasses displayed was unmatched in Europe, and there were not many military units in the world who were capable of wielding so many arms and armour. A typical gallowglass would have known how to use a battleaxe, a claymore, a bow, a shillelagh, javelins, darts, and many of the Irish martial arts such as wrestling and boxing".

- "the gallowglass wore mostly chainmail and some leather, although many have also been depicted wearing iron and steel helmets".

http://thelastgaelicempire.webs.com/gallowglasses.htm

The Total War universe also concurs:

- "the mercenary Galloglaich found in Scotland and Ireland will easily outclass anything the English have to offer if you can hire them- they're even better than Highland Nobles!"

http://medieval2.heavengames.com/m2tw/i ... ndex.shtml

In fact, every wargames army list that includes them that I've seen has them as superior quality. I simply cannot agree that the six superior (and no average) Galloglaich that I deployed in my army against you was unhistorical, as you felt.

I think that we are going to have to "agree to disagree" here, Iron_Duke.

I think the article you are quoting from is very contentious. It says, "gallowglasses were a large part of Gaelic armies" - it might have been better to have said that they were an important part of Gaelic armies. Boylan suggests that the very richest Irish nobles could field armies of around 2,000 men, of which 500 (25%) were galloglaich; while smaller nobles could not afford galloglaich at all and could only field light horse and kerns (anything from 250 up to about 1,000 men). So overall, in any larger army, the galloglaich must have numbered much less than 25%.

You mention the training "schools" in the Hebrides that Irish-born galloglaich travelled to during the winter period (no warfare taking place in Ireland) where they were taught fighting skills by Scottish Islemen. Interesting then that the Scottish Isles and Highlander list in FOG does not have any "superior" troops at all in it. Surely if the skills the Irish galloglaich learned at these schools were so exceptional then the schools would have taught Scottish born warriors the same skills? Also, the article suggests that galloglaich unable to travel to the Hebrides were taught by the Irish nobility - so the Irish must have had similar skills to the Hebrideans, in any case. So I do not think the galloglaich were "super warriors" (although they were trained in a wide range of weapons), or anything like that. Much more sensible, in my view, is to understand them as excellent warriors who were more than a match for the Anglo-Irish billmen that they encountered and who were equally matched with the armoured Anglo-Irish men-at-arms and knights who they also met on the battlefield. The veterans among the galloglaich would certainly be worthy of a "superior rating", in my view though.

The reference to the Total War site seems to be saying that in the Total War game the galloglaich are superior to everything else. This is really not very compelling as a historical reference - certainly not as compelling anyway as the pictures of the grave effigies I provided earlier today (unless it turns out that the galloglaich had bionic kneecaps and shinbones!

I don't want to write anything more about galloglaich - people can make up their own minds about them - but I do want to look at Kevin Boylan's article about the Medieval Irish on the DBA site in a bit more detail.

He comes up with this alternative army list and he references it to Bernd Lehnhoff, who is a DBM player . . .

1 x 2LH or 3 Blades (General) Gaelic Irish horse including nobles and the mounted element of the Rising Out. In the first option they are mounted; in the second, dismounted.

1 x 3Cav or 2LH or 3Blades The first option is for Anglo-Norman men-at-arms, the second for Gaelic Irish nobles, and the third is either of the first two dismounted.

2 x 4Blades or 3Aux The first option is for Galloglass, the second is Kern (as below). The latter option covers the period before the Galloglass arrived in Ireland.

4 x 3Aux Most full-time mercenary Kern plus the best-equipped footmen of the Rising Out.

3 x 2 Skirmishers Younger, nimbler, and less well-equipped mercenary Kern, plus the bulk of the Rising Out.

1 x 2 Skirmishers or 6Aux The first option is for additional Kern skirmishers, the second covers the summons of the entire Rising Out of all able-bodied freemen.

http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/armies/dba164.html

There are a number of striking things about this list when you compare it to our FOG lists. Firstly, there is no indigenous Irish cavalry, only Irish light horse who are nobles and the wealthier members of the Rising Out. Also, the Irish leaders often dismounted to fight. Secondly the kerns were mercenaries too so it makes me wonder aout the "poor" kerns in the DAG list - who are they meant to represent exactly? And thirdly that the Rising Out was much more important than the DAG list would lead us to believe, particularly in the southern half of Ireland well into the 15thC - it also seems to be the case that the Rising Out consisted of different strata of Irish fighters that suggests the "poor mob" designation of them in the DAG is rather inadequate.

The Rising Out was the method by which Irish society mobilised for war during the "Dark Ages" and was comprised of landowners, warriors and freemen.

stockwellpete wrote:I think that we are going to have to "agree to disagree" here, Iron_Duke.

So you've budged a little then!

My final thoughts on the Galloglaich: I think it's useful to see how they compare points-wise to other units in FoG. Here are some examples:

English men-at-arms foot soldier (from the same time period) - 16 points
Typical Roman legionary foot soldier - 14 points
English retinue billman (same time period) - 10 points
Kern (little more than peasant levy with sticks) - 5 points

My understanding would put the original Norse-Gaelic Galloglaich more like 9 points than 7 points. On naming, perhaps some variation of Galloglaich exiled nobles or a division between Norse-Scots Galloglaich and Irish Galloglaich would be more explanatory according to this interpretation.

the_iron_duke wrote: Kern (little more than peasant levy with sticks) - 5 points

I think this rather disparaging ( ) description of the kern may be wrong though, iron_duke. Boylan writes this . . .

"Historian Katherine Simms writes that "...by the opening years of the thirteenth century, we clearly are dealing with bands of gaelic Irish mercenaries, sometimes called ceithirne congbhala, 'retained bands'." The theory that kern were mercenaries is supported by numerous references in contemporary sources (particularly those penned by clergymen) that decry their criminal habit of coercing 'hospitality' from all and sundry. Evidently, the kern (frequently with the connivance of their employers) interpreted their billeting rights as license to engage in open brigandage. Indeed, the very word ceithirne came to be synonymous with 'brigand', and one chronicler even rendered it as cioth Ifrinn ('a shower of hell'). These expressions of revulsion only make sense if the kern were permanently embodied bands of mercenaries. If the kern were only mustered into service for brief periods when a hosting was summoned, then churchmen would have had little to complain about.”

Katharine Simms teaches at Trinity College, Dublin . . .

http://www.tcd.ie/longroomhub/iehn/profiles/simmsk.php

This opens up a number of questions for me in terms of the kerns in the DAG list. Firstly, I wonder if the category of "poor" LF kern that you can buy for 2pts should really be there - maybe these troops were part of the Rising Out? Secondly, should there be the option to pick a small number of "superior" kern (would cost 7pts) to represent the veterans among them? And thirdly, should all the kerns be "protected"?

the_iron_duke wrote: My final thoughts on the Galloglaich: I think it's useful to see how they compare points-wise to other units in FoG. Here are some examples:

English men-at-arms foot soldier (from the same time period) - 16 points
English retinue billman (same time period) - 10 points

My understanding would put the original Norse-Gaelic Galloglaich more like 9 points than 7 points. On naming, perhaps some variation of Galloglaich exiled nobles or a division between Norse-Scots Galloglaich and Irish Galloglaich would be more explanatory according to this interpretation.

I think the 16pts units are really heavily armoured foot knights ("superior" and "drilled") so these would represent the very best fighting men in their respective armies - including royalty, the most powerful nobles and the veterans. There is some slippage across the lists in the way various descriptors are used. According to the SOA book, the term "men-at-arms" is used in these lists to include knights and other fully equipped men-at-arms and also less well-equipped sergeants, valets, coustilliers et al filling rear ranks." I would expect heavily armoured knights to defeat most gallowglaich quite comfortably, although the "superior" gallowglaich would give them a good fight.

The English retinue billmen are "armoured" and "drilled" for those 10pts but they do not appear in the Anglo-Irish lists. The Colonist billmen in the Anglo-Irish lists are either "average" (7pts) or "poor" (5pts), both "undrilled", and "protected". I would expect the galloglaich to defeat both categories of colonist billmen quite easily.

In terms of the naming of the two galloglaich categories, I would go for either "galloglaich veterans" or "experienced galloglaich" for the 9pts and just "galloglaich for the 7pts. I don't think there was this clear distinction between "Norse-Scots" and "Irish" galloglaich as you are suggesting. The Norse-Scots certainly came over as a separate social grouping but in time they gradually assimilated into Irish society through marriage and other social interaction.

stockwellpete wrote: I think this rather disparaging ( )

It was slightly disparaging but not a lot, the point being they are cheap-as-chips infantry in FoG having only protected armour and a light spear - you don't get more basically equipped MF melee troops than that in the game. You yourself commented about how many of them there were in my game with you and implied you couldn't win because of their force of numbers.

In any case, I'll let you have the last word.

stockwellpete wrote:people can make up their own minds about them

Here is a hypothetical scenario at 400pts for you to try. The Medieval Irish army is based on Boylan's suggestions above and it is quite different from what is in the DAG. The Anglo-Irish army is identical to the DAG though - and I haven't come across anything at all that would suggest that the DAG is incorrect in any way.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/15461007/Altern ... enario.rar

If anybody fancies giving it a whirl please let me know. We could play it as a paired game.